Al Gore an Global Warming, Someone Explain This To Me

[ClayTrainor]

Okay,

I have quite a few friends who think that global warming is such a serious problem, and that Al Gore is the only man with the solution to the problem.

I don't buy this, not for one second, i don't trust Al Gore, and i do believe he stands an awful lot to profit from this whole Global Warming scare.

I'm really not knowledgable though. Could some of you

A. Explain Global Warming as a political issue, and where Ron Paul Stands on it

B. Counter Al Gore's Global Warming Plan with constructive criticism.

It would really help alot so i could convert a few people :)

[jufreese]

al gore would be the only man with the solution seeing hows he made the whole thing up

[tonyr1988]

Okay,

I have quite a few friends who think that global warming is such a serious problem, and that Al Gore is the only man with the solution to the problem.

I don't buy this, not for one second, i don't trust Al Gore, and i do believe he stands an awful lot to profit from this whole Global Warming scare.

I'm really not knowledgable though. Could some of you

A. Explain Global Warming as a political issue, and where Ron Paul Stands on it

B. Counter Al Gore's Global Warming Plan with constructive criticism.

It would really help alot so i could convert a few people :)

A. Ron Paul will do anything within his power to help combat global warming in America. What can he do? Absolutely nothing. Feds have no power to control the environment at all.

B. See point A. :)

[phixion]

You won't convert them. The scientists can't all even agree, meaning your friends who want to believe it's a problem so they can pat themselves on the back for 'caring' about it will continue to believe it.

Pete

[jufreese]

A. RP doesnt believe in global warming caused by us.

B. 30 years ago we had a global cooling scare.

[humanic]

I've been meaning to read the articles on Freedom Force International on the politics of global warming. This organization was co-founded by G. Edward Griffin and strongly supports Ron Paul.

http://freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=global_warming&refpage=issues

[hillertexas]

Global warming and cooling is natural....even when there are no humans.
The only consistency with the climate, is that it changes.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2130/2084239327_b5079736de_o.gif

[Staynsane]

It's up to the people of the world to make it "green", or just a better place to live all the way around, not the US Federal Government.

[Redcard]

You won't convert them. The scientists can't all even agree, meaning your friends who want to believe it's a problem so they can pat themselves on the back for 'caring' about it will continue to believe it.

Pete

Show me one peer reviewed study that states humans are not responsible for increased CO2 production and collection in the atmosphere.

Just one.

You'll be hard pressed to find one.

Scientists agree.

The MEDIA has created the controversey here.

And no, Jim Inhofe's 400 economists are NOT global warming scientists.

[m72mc]

Okay,

I have quite a few friends who think that global warming is such a serious problem, and that Al Gore is the only man with the solution to the problem.

I don't buy this, not for one second, i don't trust Al Gore, and i do believe he stands an awful lot to profit from this whole Global Warming scare.

I'm really not knowledgable though. Could some of you

A. Explain Global Warming as a political issue, and where Ron Paul Stands on it

B. Counter Al Gore's Global Warming Plan with constructive criticism.

It would really help alot so i could convert a few people :)

watch this

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295&q=global+warming&total=27547&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6

[PepperdotNet]

Climate change is real.

Believing that humans can do anything at all to alter it is ludicrous.

Gore's plan is simply a transfer of wealth from US to other nations.

[Dr.3D]

Watch this one too. Here are a lot of scientists who say man has nothing to do with global warming.

The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://www.tundrapolitics.com/2008/01/25/watch-the-great-global-warming-swindle/)

[Redcard]

Climate change is real.

Believing that humans can do anything at all to alter it is ludicrous.

Gore's plan is simply a transfer of wealth from US to other nations.

You apparently know nothing of Gore's plan, other than what you were told it was by some oil company lobbiest who is masking as a scientist.

Here's Gore's plan.

1. Raise fuel economy standards. Right now, cars we make cannot be sold in China because they are too pollutant. They can sell their lead tainted toys over here, but we can't sell a SINGLE model of car of ours over there. Is there any wonder why US auto companies are falling apart? Our products are simply inferior. One state bucked the trend, and they were promptly sued by the EPA.

2. Increase greenway / bikeway / walkway paths. Make biking to work a safe option. Make walking to work a safe option.

3. Switch to CFL's for lighting. Makes sense. They waste less energy, save you money, last longer, and light better.

4. Buy a hybrid. This coupled with #1 are just thorns in the sides of the oil lobbyests. They HATE these two things.

5. Sign Kyoto. Okay, this one I agree with you on. A carbon offset economy is a GOOD THING.. but not when it can be gamed. Not when the sole purpose is to shuffle blame around.

6. Purchase Green Energy. This can be done now, and the few extra cents per kilowatt are often fed back into the energy system to encourage development of more wind farms, solar power farms, and hydro power plants. Nuclear would be nice too.


All in all, we can reduce our carbon offsets to where it was in 1970 by doing steps 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. All without step 5. Step 5 would have pulled us below 1970.

So please, know the plan. Understand "the plan" would save us money as a nation. It's good for the economy. It's good for the environment.

[Redcard]

Watch this one too. Here are a lot of scientists who say man has nothing to do with global warming.

The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://www.tundrapolitics.com/2008/01/25/watch-the-great-global-warming-swindle/)

Many of the scientists in this film claim that they were misquoted and that their data was intentionally reinterpreted for it.

[Dr.3D]

You apparently know nothing of Gore's plan, other than what you were told it was by some oil company lobbiest who is masking as a scientist.

Here's Gore's plan.
~SNIP

And exactly how does that stop China from taking over where we left off?

[CaptBookbag]

http://www.evilwhiteguy.com/blog/images/manbearpig.jpg

[Redcard]

And exactly how does that stop China from taking over where we left off?

It doesn't. But this is a worldwide issue. Besides. Even if you don't believe in it..
Even if you think Al Gore is a pinko commie asshole pretentious prick..

We have cars that suck gasoline. Just freaking drink it. Our requirements haven't gone up for years, and automakers and the oil companies are in bed and loving it.

Don't you want a car that gets you 60, 70, 80 miles to the gallon? Aren't you tired of giving $50 to the oil companies every week?

If you don't believe in this and don't want to save the environment, or don't believe the environment is at risk, fine. I think you're wrong, but I'll accept that opinion.

But telling me that you don't want to save money , reduce foreign oil dependence, and help the economy?

Forget Kyoto. I'd be thrilled if we got our fuel economy standards up somewhere past where they've been for 20+ years, and if more people bought hybrids.

[LibertyOfOne]

You apparently know nothing of Gore's plan, other than what you were told it was by some oil company lobbiest who is masking as a scientist.

Here's Gore's plan.

1. Raise fuel economy standards. Right now, cars we make cannot be sold in China because they are too pollutant. They can sell their lead tainted toys over here, but we can't sell a SINGLE model of car of ours over there. Is there any wonder why US auto companies are falling apart? Our products are simply inferior. One state bucked the trend, and they were promptly sued by the EPA.

2. Increase greenway / bikeway / walkway paths. Make biking to work a safe option. Make walking to work a safe option.

3. Switch to CFL's for lighting. Makes sense. They waste less energy, save you money, last longer, and light better.

4. Buy a hybrid. This coupled with #1 are just thorns in the sides of the oil lobbyests. They HATE these two things.

5. Sign Kyoto. Okay, this one I agree with you on. A carbon offset economy is a GOOD THING.. but not when it can be gamed. Not when the sole purpose is to shuffle blame around.

6. Purchase Green Energy. This can be done now, and the few extra cents per kilowatt are often fed back into the energy system to encourage development of more wind farms, solar power farms, and hydro power plants. Nuclear would be nice too.


All in all, we can reduce our carbon offsets to where it was in 1970 by doing steps 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. All without step 5. Step 5 would have pulled us below 1970.

So please, know the plan. Understand "the plan" would save us money as a nation. It's good for the economy. It's good for the environment.

I really don't see the point. Oil is a finite resource and is not going to be here forever. What are the current temperature projections for the next 50 years a full point clime in average global temperature? Even that is into question given the latest data it could be only 1/2 of a point. By that time the use of oil would be no where close to what we see to day given how scarce it is. Peak production will demand us to find other energy means. You don't need government for this problem because the scarcity of the oil supply will eventually force us to conserve. The government intervention proposed by the GWPers is based on the false assumption that oil is not a finite resource. I don't want to curb the market with carbon taxes and other such nonsense being that we will need all the resources to transform from an oil based economy to one that is not. We don't need government force to force people to by a certain type of car. The market is already producing viable alternatives without the use of the government. Such alternatives are becoming cheaper and more effienct each year without the government's "help".

[Redcard]

What are the current temperature projections for the next 50 years a full point clime in average global temperature? Even that is into question given the latest data it could be only 1/2 of a point. help.

For the next 50 years, if you believe the consensus of scientists (and not the Global Warming Swindle Movie which is basically bought and paid for by the oil lobby and contains FAKE graphs, cutoffs of graphs, and horribly skewed scale lines, amongst other things), we're looking at a 1 to 2 degree rise of the temperature, Greenland melted off, and a rise in sea levels of 10 to 20 feet, by 2050.

[LibertyOfOne]

The reason why I oppose this is because the government won't help. Just look at the current push for bio fuels made from corn. The people who grow corn want the government to fund that crap even though bio fuels made from corn are close to a net energy loser. That is what happens when you get government involved. With the mandates on cars given how crappy the system is it will only lead to those who have political connection to get their car certified while their competitors struggle because they weren't the ones to lobby for it. That would kill innovation leaving the big fish to monopolize with the force of government, while the small guys get eaten up. Political favoritism happens all the time and has already creped into this issue.

[LibertyOfOne]

For the next 50 years, if you believe the consensus of scientists (and not the Global Warming Swindle Movie which is basically bought and paid for by the oil lobby and contains FAKE graphs, cutoffs of graphs, and horribly skewed scale lines, amongst other things), we're looking at a 1 to 2 degree rise of the temperature, Greenland melted off, and a rise in sea levels of 10 to 20 feet, by 2050.

In 20 years if you follow what the oil reserves have there will be close to no oil to regulate.

[Redcard]

The reason why I oppose this is because the government won't help. Just look at the current push for bio fuels made from corn. The people who grow corn want the government to fund that crap even though bio fuels made from corn are close to a net energy loser. That is what happens when you get government involved. With the mandates on cars given how crappy the system is it will only lead to those who have political connection to get their car certified while their competitors struggle because they weren't the ones to lobby for it. That would kill innovation leaving the big fish to monopolize with the force of government, while the small guys get eaten up. Political favoritism happens all the time and has already creped into this issue.

Fair enough.

Then drop Kyoto from the list of Gore's plan. Don't do it. But all the other stuff I listed will save you money, get you in shape, and reduce the foreign interventionism that is seemingly justified to maintain our use of oil. If I'm right, and it saves the earth, what's the harm?

[LibertyOfOne]

For the next 50 years, if you believe the consensus of scientists (and not the Global Warming Swindle Movie which is basically bought and paid for by the oil lobby and contains FAKE graphs, cutoffs of graphs, and horribly skewed scale lines, amongst other things), we're looking at a 1 to 2 degree rise of the temperature, Greenland melted off, and a rise in sea levels of 10 to 20 feet, by 2050.

Yeah Yeah Yeah I must get my information from the big oil companies because I don't buy into the regulation must happen dogma.

[Redcard]

In 20 years if you follow what the oil reserves have there will be close to no oil to regulate.

Well, in under a year, the oil is going to be off the dollar. In 20, we're not going to be able to afford it as much, and it'd be nice if we had an alternative energy.

Maybe one that didn't release CO2?

Just thinking.

Look, the long run is this. Burning fossil fuels releases CO2. CO2 is the problem. If you don't believe that, fine. Look at it like this. Burning fossil fuels requires us to ship it in from countries that we are pissing off.

Any reduction of that is good, right?

I know I'm not going to convince you that Gore is right. I'd like to. I'd REALLY like if you sat down and gave his movie a chance, as it's not the doom and gloom and America hating that it's made out to be.. but.. failing that.. I think we can reach a consensus here without you having to agree with Gore's hypothesis.

[Dr.3D]

Interesting how so many Masons I talk to are opposed to the Great Global Warming Swindle movie. Every one of them says the same things about that movie almost as if they went to a meeting to learn what to say about it. Is there a connection between the Masons and the strong general belief in Global Warming?

[TSOL]

If you don't think Global Warming isn't a real phenomenon then you're an idiot.

[LibertyOfOne]

:)

[Redcard]

Yeah Yeah Yeah I must get my information from the big oil companies because I don't buy into the regulation must happen dogma.

Then don't. Don't believe in regulation. Push for the companies to make more fuel economic cars.

We have cars right now that have the SAME safety standards as those in other countries.. only, in those other countries, they have higher gas mileage.

Why aren't they over here?

Well, because, they tell you that it's harder to ship them over here. They talk about "export restrictions" and "safety issues."

You can have a car , right now, that gets 50 mpg. BEFORE hybridization.

If you don't want regulation, FINE. But I can't see why you're letting auto and oil companies screw you in the ass.

[LibertyOfOne]

Interesting how so many Masons I talk to are opposed to the Great Global Warming Swindle movie. Every one of them says the same things about that movie almost as if they went to a meeting to learn what to say about it. Is there a connection between the Masons and the strong general belief in Global Warming?

If there is so what? I could careless what a bunch of beer drinkers talked about anyways.

[Dr.3D]

If you don't think Global Warming isn't a real phenomenon then you're an idiot.

Global warming is true! It's just that people causing it is a silly thought.
When they went to the poles to check the amount of CO2 throughout the years, they also checked to see what the temperatures were throughout those same years.

What is very interesting is that the temperature would go up some 300 to 700 years before the carbon dioxide level went up. The converse also holds true. As the temperature went down, then years later, the carbon dioxide levels also dropped.

So the change is temperature is what causes the rise or fall in carbon dioxide levels, not the carbon dioxide levels causing the change in temperature.

[LibertyOfOne]

Then don't. Don't believe in regulation. Push for the companies to make more fuel economic cars.

We have cars right now that have the SAME safety standards as those in other countries.. only, in those other countries, they have higher gas mileage.

Why aren't they over here?

Well, because, they tell you that it's harder to ship them over here. They talk about "export restrictions" and "safety issues."

You can have a car , right now, that gets 50 mpg. BEFORE hybridization.

If you don't want regulation, FINE. But I can't see why you're letting auto and oil companies screw you in the ass.

You let companies screw you in the ass along with the rest of America. Who has the real power the buyer or the seller? You see we as consumers can buy whatever the fuck we want. The problem with those cars is that people don't want to drive something so small when everyone else has these huge cars. It's illogical, but people see the cars as death traps. The goal would be to change that perception. Also it wouldn't hurt to start a trend where it's cooler to drive said cars. If the price of oil wasn't subsidized with intervention in other countries to begin with this would not be a problem being that the price of oil would truly reflect its scarcity.

[amy31416]

Tell your pal, that she will have more control over the environment in the sense that we have more control of where our money goes.

Don't want it to line oil companies pockets? Don't buy their wares.

Don't want to buy crap from dirty companies like Halliburton, etc? Guess what--they have NO MORE GOVERNMENT FAVORS OR HANDOUTS.

Think that your state/city is too smoggy? You write to your Senators, Congressmen, mayors etc. You have MORE control! Senators, Congressmen, Mayors, State Reps are all much more accessible to us than the Federal Govt.

But it requires that YOU take responsibility and educate YOURSELF on the issues.

[attackkatt]

This says it best http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-qu_0KlMvw :D

[Young_Apprentice]

the IPCC is a government program, not scientific. Many of the scientists whose names were included did not agree at all with the reports.

But, even if agw is happening on the scale the scaremongers are saying, they don't have the solution. The only solution is new technology, created by a strong economy.

Penn and Teller illustrated the point really well. Imagine you're suffocating with a plastic bag over your head. The governments' solution is to breathe less, which will ultimately result in death, albeit slower. The market's solution is to create a tool to peirce the bag.

[m72mc]

You apparently know nothing of Gore's plan, other than what you were told it was by some oil company lobbiest who is masking as a scientist.

Here's Gore's plan.

1. Raise fuel economy standards. Right now, cars we make cannot be sold in China because they are too pollutant. They can sell their lead tainted toys over here, but we can't sell a SINGLE model of car of ours over there. Is there any wonder why US auto companies are falling apart? Our products are simply inferior. One state bucked the trend, and they were promptly sued by the EPA.

2. Increase greenway / bikeway / walkway paths. Make biking to work a safe option. Make walking to work a safe option.

3. Switch to CFL's for lighting. Makes sense. They waste less energy, save you money, last longer, and light better.

4. Buy a hybrid. This coupled with #1 are just thorns in the sides of the oil lobbyests. They HATE these two things.

5. Sign Kyoto. Okay, this one I agree with you on. A carbon offset economy is a GOOD THING.. but not when it can be gamed. Not when the sole purpose is to shuffle blame around.

6. Purchase Green Energy. This can be done now, and the few extra cents per kilowatt are often fed back into the energy system to encourage development of more wind farms, solar power farms, and hydro power plants. Nuclear would be nice too.


All in all, we can reduce our carbon offsets to where it was in 1970 by doing steps 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. All without step 5. Step 5 would have pulled us below 1970.

So please, know the plan. Understand "the plan" would save us money as a nation. It's good for the economy. It's good for the environment.
you do realize it will be a tax on breathing and farthing ?

[athlon64bit]

Many of the scientists in this film claim that they were misquoted and that their data was intentionally reinterpreted for it.

Only 1 scientist made that claim and just because one scientist was edited out of context does not discredit the whole film.


If you don't think Global Warming isn't a real phenomenon then you're an idiot.

Have you watched this documentary before?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3069943905833454241

:rolleyes:

Also Global Warming stopped in 2001.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004

Has global warming stopped?

David Whitehouse
Published 19 December 2007

'The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001'

Global warming stopped? Surely not. What heresy is this? Haven’t we been told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and that all that’s left to the so-called sceptics is the odd errant glacier that refuses to melt?
Aren’t we told that if we don’t act now rising temperatures will render most of the surface of the Earth uninhabitable within our lifetimes? But as we digest these apocalyptic comments, read the recent IPCC’s Synthesis report that says climate change could become irreversible. Witness the drama at Bali as news emerges that something is not quite right in the global warming camp.
With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 – there has been no warming over the 12 months.
But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.
The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.
In principle the greenhouse effect is simple. Gases like carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere absorb outgoing infrared radiation from the earth’s surface causing some heat to be retained.
Consequently an increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities such as burning fossil fuels leads to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Thus the world warms, the climate changes and we are in trouble.
The evidence for this hypothesis is the well established physics of the greenhouse effect itself and the correlation of increasing global carbon dioxide concentration with rising global temperature. Carbon dioxide is clearly increasing in the Earth’s atmosphere. It’s a straight line upward. It is currently about 390 parts per million. Pre-industrial levels were about 285 ppm. Since 1960 when accurate annual measurements became more reliable it has increased steadily from about 315 ppm. If the greenhouse effect is working as we think then the Earth’s temperature will rise as the carbon dioxide levels increase.
But here it starts getting messy and, perhaps, a little inconvenient for some. Looking at the global temperatures as used by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UK’s Met Office and the IPCC (and indeed Al Gore) it’s apparent that there has been a sharp rise since about 1980.
The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming – a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). But since then the global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has relentlessly risen from 370ppm to 380ppm). This means that the global temperature today is about 0.3 deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued.
For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows that global warming as such has ceased.
The explanation for the standstill has been attributed to aerosols in the atmosphere produced as a by-product of greenhouse gas emission and volcanic activity. They would have the effect of reflecting some of the incidental sunlight into space thereby reducing the greenhouse effect. Such an explanation was proposed to account for the global cooling observed between 1940 and 1978.
But things cannot be that simple. The fact that the global temperature has remained unchanged for a decade requires that the quantity of reflecting aerosols dumped put in our atmosphere must be increasing year on year at precisely the exact rate needed to offset the accumulating carbon dioxide that wants to drive the temperature higher. This precise balance seems highly unlikely. Other explanations have been proposed such as the ocean cooling effect of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.
But they are also difficult to adjust so that they exactly compensate for the increasing upward temperature drag of rising CO2. So we are led to the conclusion that either the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced global warming holds but its effects are being modified in what seems to be an improbable though not impossible way, or, and this really is heresy according to some, the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data.
It was a pity that the delegates at Bali didn’t discuss this or that the recent IPCC Synthesis report did not look in more detail at this recent warming standstill. Had it not occurred, or if the flatlining of temperature had occurred just five years earlier we would have no talk of global warming and perhaps, as happened in the 1970’s, we would fear a new Ice Age! Scientists and politicians talk of future projected temperature increases. But if the world has stopped warming what use these projections then?
Some media commentators say that the science of global warming is now beyond doubt and those who advocate alternative approaches or indeed modifications to the carbon dioxide greenhouse warming effect had lost the scientific argument. Not so.
Certainly the working hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming is a good one that stands on good physical principles but let us not pretend our understanding extends too far or that the working hypothesis is a sufficient explanation for what is going on.
I have heard it said, by scientists, journalists and politicians, that the time for argument is over and that further scientific debate only causes delay in action. But the wish to know exactly what is going on is independent of politics and scientists must never bend their desire for knowledge to any political cause, however noble.
The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earth’s atmosphere’s interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain why global warming has stopped.
David Whitehosue was BBC Science Correspondent 1988–1998, Science Editor BBC News Online 1998–2006 and the 2004 European Internet Journalist of the Year. He has a doctorate in astrophysics and is the author of The Sun: A Biography (John Wiley, 2005).] His website is www.davidwhitehouse.com

[Dr.3D]

If there is so what? I could careless what a bunch of beer drinkers talked about anyways.

I was hoping for an intelligent answer.

I don't care if you could care less. As for the "bunch of beer drinkers", Many Masonic Temple's don't allow alcohol inside the building.

[lost_in_samoa]

..

[amy31416]

4.) What Mr. Gore is putting forward as truth is a Dr. Mann's THEORY.

I'm a spaz for the word "theory" because I think it's vastly misunderstood. Tell me, is this only his theory or have others elevated it to theory?

Has it gone under the arbitrary tests to actually elevate it from hypothesis to theory? Theories are pretty serious to me, and while I'm not even close to you in expertise on the environment, something elevated to theory has to have gone through some stringent testing.

So, I'm essentially confessing my ignorance on Dr. Mann's theory--has it truly gone through the experimentation and prediction necessary to consider it as a theory? My first instinct is to highly doubt that.

[lost_in_samoa]

..

[MN Patriot]

I work for the Federal Govt. as an atmospheric researcher. My department is tasked with answering the big questions about global warming.
...
In the same breath, I say that putting all of our research efforts, and agreeing to ungodly economic concessions (Kyoto protocol), and blindly following one UNSUBSTANTIATED, NON-PEER REVIEWED THEORY is not the way to solve any problems we as a species may have created.

In my mind we need to study the atmosphere and our planet in the same way a farmer studies his fields. If we do not pay very close attention to what we are doing then we just might cripple our ability to produce food. Imagine if the bread baskets in the mainland or Europe received 20 more or less inches of rain per year.

So do your own DUE DILIGENCE. Educate yourself on this issue so you will be ready when the enviro-nazi's (yes there is such a thing), come out of the wood work.

Good post. I wrote a term paper for my computer science capstone class about the climate models. The more I learned, the more I was impressed with their complexity. But at the same time I learned how incomplete they are as far as accurate data and the interaction of all the variables in the climate system, including the ones we don't know about or fully understand. My suspicion is the climate models have been manipulated to exagerate the influence of CO2 in order to scare people into adopting a different political agenda. One of the biggest proponents of anthropogenic climate change is Jim Hansen, who is a political hack funded by George Soros.

6000 years ago temperatures were much higher than they are today, Minnesota was all prairie. No hardwood or coniferous forests. Now we have 3 major biomes. The polar bears up north survived that period of global warming, they can survive another one. Yes, temperatures might have risen in the last 40 years, but they could very well start dropping. I'm not worried about what the climate system will do, but I am concerned about what the charlatans and socialists will do to fool people into adopting their ideology.

[amy31416]

Google is your friend.


I'll restate my point, and sidestep semantics.

Dr. Mann's ideas about the correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperature are at this stage just that. Ideas.

Those ideas were released to the public before they were peer reviewed. Since that time they have been accepted as a truth.

There is no scientifically proven relationship between global atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature fluctuations.

Part of our research follows this idea. I measure temperature 4 different ways. I also measure CO2 and water vapor to the ppb. All of my data is shipped back to data centers where the analysis folks chew on it.

My group is part of a global cooperative network that makes these measurements so that we can definitively prove or disprove Dr. Mann's ideas.

Yes, well, I was being intellectually lazy, assuming you already had the answers to my questions.

I also didn't feel like being particularly argumentative. I went with my gut that this was an assumed "theory." Which irks me to no end.

Look at what gravity had to go through! Look at what evolution had to stand against! And this one chump calls it a "theory" and waters down the very definition...we should be outraged as scientists.

We know what theory means, we know how it can be convoluted. We know that there are those who use it consistently and incorrectly. And while I admit that I have almost zero experience in the environmental science field (aside from some grad school stuff on water quality) I knows what makes up a dang theory, and one dude sayin' it's so, don't make it so. Dammit. Repeatability, Predict, Retest, Retest, Retest, Predict...and on and on...it must stand the test of time, experiment and prediction.

See through the BS and let's get some real data. It is actually important to know what the hell is going on with our climate and what effect we have on it!

[MN Patriot]

Then don't. Don't believe in regulation. Push for the companies to make more fuel economic cars.

We have cars right now that have the SAME safety standards as those in other countries.. only, in those other countries, they have higher gas mileage.

Why aren't they over here?

Well, because, they tell you that it's harder to ship them over here. They talk about "export restrictions" and "safety issues."

You can have a car , right now, that gets 50 mpg. BEFORE hybridization.

If you don't want regulation, FINE. But I can't see why you're letting auto and oil companies screw you in the ass.

I agree with you that we should have much better fuel efficiency, it just drives me nuts to see all these rednecks driving their big 4X4's 80mph, getting 8mpg when gas is $3 a gallon. But that is the great and contradictory thing about living in a free country. People are free to squander their hard earned money in whatever way they like. And that hard earned money is what is left over after the IRS got their greedy fingers on it before the boss even cut the check.

Energy is key to a strong economy. The cleanest energy is nuclear, but the environmental lobby is opposed to building more reactors. (yes, some greenies have changed their tune, but not many) So the environmentalists aren't concerned with our economy, they propose unrealistic technologies like solar and wind. Yeah, jobs could be created with more solar and wind power, but we could create jobs by harnessing people to treadmills and making them generate electicity like a bunch of hamsters, too. It would be more reliable than solar or wind.

Here is another twist on the whole controversy about human caused global warming: if CO2 is the problem, then lets do whatever we can to remove it from the atmosphere. I've done some reading and research, and one of the most promising ways to reduce and sequester CO2 is by iron fertilization of the oceans. I've suggested this in a number of other forums. The predictable response from the global warming alarmists is "NO WAY". They don't even want to consider, much less investigate and research a method that could substantially reduce the extra CO2 we have emitted into the atmosphere. Which tells me they don't want a solution to the crisis. All they want is a crisis so they can push for their socialist agenda.

[Fox McCloud]

1. Raise fuel economy standards. Right now, cars we make cannot be sold in China because they are too pollutant. They can sell their lead tainted toys over here, but we can't sell a SINGLE model of car of ours over there. Is there any wonder why US auto companies are falling apart? Our products are simply inferior. One state bucked the trend, and they were promptly sued by the EPA.

The government has absolutely no right to tell a car company how to run their business...in reality, we need to remove all subsidies in all markets so that the companies can fairly compete...that way, fuel standards will go up on their own....also, from my own observation, fuel economy has slowly been going up anyway. Besides, if you put some mandate on it (and the subsidies are still around), the car companies will put it off until the last minute, then sacrifice safety for fuel efficiency, just to meet the government mandate. It won't work, and the consumer will end up being the one harmed in the end.


2. Increase greenway / bikeway / walkway paths. Make biking to work a safe option. Make walking to work a safe option.

Don't force me to pay for it unless I want to--especially at the Federal level...if a State government does it, it's Constitutional (though I'd oppose it), but not at the Federal level.


3. Switch to CFL's for lighting. Makes sense. They waste less energy, save you money, last longer, and light better.

I don't like them as they look unnatural, they give some people head-aches, and they have a bad habit of flickering. The government has no right to mandate that I have to buy these...let me invest in what I want to invest in (for me, it's incandescent, until LED takes off), don't force me, or businesses to do what a bunch of government officials things is 'right'.


4. Buy a hybrid. This coupled with #1 are just thorns in the sides of the oil lobbyests. They HATE these two things.

Hybrids aren't the be-all and end-all of cars...there's still batteries involved, not to mention they're very VERY expensive....diesels, right now, are a superior automobile (well, were, until the EPA forced them into using different fuel)...not only that, but there's biodiesel, which can be made out of the hundreds of thousands of gallons of unused waste-oil.


5. Sign Kyoto. Okay, this one I agree with you on. A carbon offset economy is a GOOD THING.. but not when it can be gamed. Not when the sole purpose is to shuffle blame around.

Nope....not gonna sign things that affect our economy or national sovereignty in a negative way.


6. Purchase Green Energy. This can be done now, and the few extra cents per kilowatt are often fed back into the energy system to encourage development of more wind farms, solar power farms, and hydro power plants. Nuclear would be nice too.

Again, don't force me to do it, let it be my choice...wind farms are fine when they're located out in the ocean, or in barren land, but corporations are raping people when it comes to property rights, by building them really close to people's property in rural areas...it generates noise, causes some people to have headaches, some can't sleep, and the "strobe effect" is also not a good thing for people's health. I'm fine with wind energy, but when it affects people's property rights? They can freak off.

Nuclear, fine, as long as it doesn't affect my property rights and I don't have to fund it via taxes....same with solar and hydro (though I find it funny a lot of environmentalists support hydro, as it's often caused problems for the local wildlife in the long run of things).


All very bad ideas, and should only be handled by the Free Market, or the individual...most of the ideas (if you're talking from a government perspective) are very anti-Libertarian.



So please, know the plan. Understand "the plan" would save us money as a nation. It's good for the economy. It's good for the environment.


he's also proposed a carbon tax and "cap-and-trade", both are un-Libertarian, and both will only help the already mega-corporations that have the government in their back pocket (and the carbon tax will fund the icky UN)....so, your claims are only mostly true.

[Number19]

I doubt there is a single researcher or scientist who would not acknowledge that climate change is occurring. The disagreement is whether "global warming" is occurring.

Global warming is defined as human induced climate change. And I am aware of no scientific facts which support this argument. What is presented as "fact" are computer simulations and theories.

[freelance]

Global warming should be no more a political issue than the fact that the sun rises in the East. Pollution and the fact that we trash the earth is another story. We cannot control the warming and cooling of the earth (unless you're talking about technology means that the average person doesn't control), but we can control polluting the earth.

Why is it okay for BIG COAL to pollute, for example, when we, the people, are supposed to revert back to a horse and buggy lifestyle and be taxed for pleasure of it all?

[freelance]

And exactly how does that stop China from taking over where we left off?

It doesn't, and that's one of the more obvious reasons that the whole thing is a scam.

[Sarge]

If this is right we might have to buy long john's.

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

[Conservative Christian]

Clay (As well as other members):

Below is the link to a blog that will tell you everything you need to know about global warming. Explore the blog thoroughly, and pass on the link to as many others as possible. Be sure to check out all the links on the left side of the page:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs

[Redcard]

Clay (As well as other members):

Below is the link to a blog that will tell you everything you need to know about global warming. Explore the blog thoroughly, and pass on the link to as many others as possible. Be sure to check out all the links on the left side of the page:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs

Cause politicians write GREAT science reports.

How about that guy in the Bush administration who literally changed the summary of a report (Of course, he changed it to say Global Warming was not a man made factor), but didn't change the conclusion INSIDE, and published the thing with his own handwriting explaining the changes he made were "Uncompatible" with current Political thought.

He got asked to resign from the White House, and was hired by an oil lobby.

Guess what he was doing BEFORE he got hired by the white house.

Yep. Oil lobby.

I think I'll believe scientists, not the schills that release fake reports at the government. It's funny that you think Global Warming is a scam because Bush tells you to, but some of you also think 9/11 wasn't really what it seems because you can't trust the government.

[FreeMind&Market]

The issue that concerns me is Regulation Vs Free Market, which is I believe the crux of RP's message. Powerful organizations such as, but not limited to, large corporations game the system to take advantage of the regulations. In general, the environmental lobby is no different the the morality lobby. If you want to stop alcohol consumption, convince me that I shouldn't drink. If you want conserve energy, convince me to switch to CFLs. But in neither case should not you use the force of government to mandate or prohibit these actions; there is always blowback when you force rather than allow a natural balance.

Although I have been converting the CFLs, in some cases incandescents still make more sense. Once LEDs are up to par, I believe the market will adopt them and quickly minimize the demand for incandescents (I still need a heat source for my lava lamp).

Hybrid cars, on the other hand, are a complete waste of money for almost all car-driving Americans. They might make sense in some urban situations. However, the additional cost of the vehicle doesn't come close to being recouped in fuel savings. Keep in mind that the cost of the vehicle is a reflection of the resources used to produce it. You are wasting resources by buying a hybrid.

That being said, hybrids aren't being mandated, but they certainly are becoming more popular. So, the market is slowly improving. When the technology advances to the point that it makes economic sense to buy one, I'll do it.

Smoking is another example. The market is slowing pushing more businesses into adopting no-smoking policies. Government, however, is trying to take credit for the trend by passing laws just before the market more fully adopts the policies. Further, then the misgovernment prevents people from having any option what-so-ever regarding smoking.

[athlon64bit]

Cause politicians write GREAT science reports.

How about that guy in the Bush administration who literally changed the summary of a report (Of course, he changed it to say Global Warming was not a man made factor), but didn't change the conclusion INSIDE, and published the thing with his own handwriting explaining the changes he made were "Uncompatible" with current Political thought.

He got asked to resign from the White House, and was hired by an oil lobby.

Guess what he was doing BEFORE he got hired by the white house.

Yep. Oil lobby.

I think I'll believe scientists, not the schills that release fake reports at the government. It's funny that you think Global Warming is a scam because Bush tells you to, but some of you also think 9/11 wasn't really what it seems because you can't trust the government.

Why not look at the history of the earth with it naturally warming and cooling before industrial revolution. Greenland was called green land because vikings grew crops on it a few centuaries ago for example, and the polar bears survived that. Al Gore is (or was) an oil man himself. He now is making money out of corporations who promote global warming. So you are basically saying don't trust corporate Bush but trust corporate Gore. Furthermore Bush DOES support Global Warming and has signed the Kyoto agreement. The only thing he tried to do was to get China and India to sign the kyoto agreement as well.

Global Warming has stopped anyway. This was written by a BBC science editor (the BBC is very left wing by the way).

http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004

Has global warming stopped?

David Whitehouse
Published 19 December 2007

'The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001'

Global warming stopped? Surely not. What heresy is this? Haven’t we been told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and that all that’s left to the so-called sceptics is the odd errant glacier that refuses to melt?
Aren’t we told that if we don’t act now rising temperatures will render most of the surface of the Earth uninhabitable within our lifetimes? But as we digest these apocalyptic comments, read the recent IPCC’s Synthesis report that says climate change could become irreversible. Witness the drama at Bali as news emerges that something is not quite right in the global warming camp.
With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 – there has been no warming over the 12 months.
But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.
The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.
In principle the greenhouse effect is simple. Gases like carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere absorb outgoing infrared radiation from the earth’s surface causing some heat to be retained.
Consequently an increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities such as burning fossil fuels leads to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Thus the world warms, the climate changes and we are in trouble.
The evidence for this hypothesis is the well established physics of the greenhouse effect itself and the correlation of increasing global carbon dioxide concentration with rising global temperature. Carbon dioxide is clearly increasing in the Earth’s atmosphere. It’s a straight line upward. It is currently about 390 parts per million. Pre-industrial levels were about 285 ppm. Since 1960 when accurate annual measurements became more reliable it has increased steadily from about 315 ppm. If the greenhouse effect is working as we think then the Earth’s temperature will rise as the carbon dioxide levels increase.
But here it starts getting messy and, perhaps, a little inconvenient for some. Looking at the global temperatures as used by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UK’s Met Office and the IPCC (and indeed Al Gore) it’s apparent that there has been a sharp rise since about 1980.
The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming – a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). But since then the global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has relentlessly risen from 370ppm to 380ppm). This means that the global temperature today is about 0.3 deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued.
For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows that global warming as such has ceased.
The explanation for the standstill has been attributed to aerosols in the atmosphere produced as a by-product of greenhouse gas emission and volcanic activity. They would have the effect of reflecting some of the incidental sunlight into space thereby reducing the greenhouse effect. Such an explanation was proposed to account for the global cooling observed between 1940 and 1978.
But things cannot be that simple. The fact that the global temperature has remained unchanged for a decade requires that the quantity of reflecting aerosols dumped put in our atmosphere must be increasing year on year at precisely the exact rate needed to offset the accumulating carbon dioxide that wants to drive the temperature higher. This precise balance seems highly unlikely. Other explanations have been proposed such as the ocean cooling effect of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.
But they are also difficult to adjust so that they exactly compensate for the increasing upward temperature drag of rising CO2. So we are led to the conclusion that either the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced global warming holds but its effects are being modified in what seems to be an improbable though not impossible way, or, and this really is heresy according to some, the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data.
It was a pity that the delegates at Bali didn’t discuss this or that the recent IPCC Synthesis report did not look in more detail at this recent warming standstill. Had it not occurred, or if the flatlining of temperature had occurred just five years earlier we would have no talk of global warming and perhaps, as happened in the 1970’s, we would fear a new Ice Age! Scientists and politicians talk of future projected temperature increases. But if the world has stopped warming what use these projections then?
Some media commentators say that the science of global warming is now beyond doubt and those who advocate alternative approaches or indeed modifications to the carbon dioxide greenhouse warming effect had lost the scientific argument. Not so.
Certainly the working hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming is a good one that stands on good physical principles but let us not pretend our understanding extends too far or that the working hypothesis is a sufficient explanation for what is going on.
I have heard it said, by scientists, journalists and politicians, that the time for argument is over and that further scientific debate only causes delay in action. But the wish to know exactly what is going on is independent of politics and scientists must never bend their desire for knowledge to any political cause, however noble.
The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earth’s atmosphere’s interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain why global warming has stopped.
David Whitehosue was BBC Science Correspondent 1988–1998, Science Editor BBC News Online 1998–2006 and the 2004 European Internet Journalist of the Year. He has a doctorate in astrophysics and is the author of The Sun: A Biography (John Wiley, 2005).] His website is www.davidwhitehouse.com

[Fox McCloud]

I think I'll believe scientists, not the schills that release fake reports at the government. It's funny that you think Global Warming is a scam because Bush tells you to, but some of you also think 9/11 wasn't really what it seems because you can't trust the government.

please, let's not bring 9/11 into this and destroy the topic.

the government doesn't always get it wrong on everything, just overall. Anyway, just because someone change something to make it say something else, doesn't mean the original information was accurate; If I wrote a report on how Libertarianism sucked and someone changed it to say that it didn't suck, it still doesn't mean that my original paper was accurate.

However, the UN is actively pushing global warming, so there are some governments pushing it.

[athlon64bit]

The U.N. also pushed the weapons of mass destruction agenda as well. That turned out to be real accurate as well.

[jyakulis]

Show me one peer reviewed study that states humans are not responsible for increased CO2 production and collection in the atmosphere.

Just one.

You'll be hard pressed to find one.

Scientists agree.

The MEDIA has created the controversey here.

And no, Jim Inhofe's 400 economists are NOT global warming scientists.

no they don't man lol. how can you even begin to say the debate is over on one of the most complex ecological systems like the earth and then predict rampant disease spread and flooding.

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/article.cfm?artId=22160

his movie has to have a disclaimer on it for god sake. it's the left's version of the right's war on terror.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

[Conservative Christian]

Cause politicians write GREAT science reports.

How about that guy in the Bush administration who literally changed the summary of a report (Of course, he changed it to say Global Warming was not a man made factor), but didn't change the conclusion INSIDE, and published the thing with his own handwriting explaining the changes he made were "Uncompatible" with current Political thought.

He got asked to resign from the White House, and was hired by an oil lobby.

Guess what he was doing BEFORE he got hired by the white house.

Yep. Oil lobby.

I think I'll believe scientists, not the schills that release fake reports at the government. It's funny that you think Global Warming is a scam because Bush tells you to, but some of you also think 9/11 wasn't really what it seems because you can't trust the government.

You've simply proven your own ignorance.

I didn't vote for George Bush, I don't support George Bush, and I don't listen to virtually anything he says.

If you had been intellectually honest enough to actually check out the link, you would realize that over FOUR HUNDRED scientists from around the world disputed the bogus liberal claims about anthropogenic global warming in 2007:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

So I'm afraid your DNC propaganda won't work with me.

[Redcard]

You've simply proven your own ignorance.

I didn't vote for George Bush, I don't support George Bush, and I don't listen to virtually anything he says.

If you had been intellectually honest enough to actually check out the link, you would realize that over FOUR HUNDRED scientists from around the world disputed bogus claims about anthropogenic global warming in 2007:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

So I'm afraid your DNC propaganda won't work with me.

Oh.. Inhofe's report?

Did you check the credentials of these guys? You might want to.

I'll give you a hint. Economists are good people, but they're not climitologists.

You might also want to follow the money. Mr. Inhofe receives most his election money from the oil and gas lobby. He's a hired gun. He takes repeated junkets on their dime. I imagine Ron Paul wouldn't like him.

[Conservative Christian]

please, let's not bring 9/11 into this and destroy the topic.

Agreed!

Redcard only brought it up in a failed attempt to "poison the well". Which is an old tactic used by those who frequently don't have any substantive arguments to support their position.

[Conservative Christian]

Oh.. Inhofe's report?

Did you check the credentials of these guys? You might want to.

I'll give you a hint. Economists are good people, but they're not climitologists.

You might also want to follow the money. Mr. Inhofe receives most his election money from the oil and gas lobby. He's a hired gun. He takes repeated junkets on their dime. I imagine Ron Paul wouldn't like him.

These guys are economists?!:

"Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists:

Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!"

Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled "The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth." "Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases' double man would not perceive the temperature impact," Sorochtin wrote. (Note: Name also sometimes translated to spell Sorokhtin)

Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. "There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried," Uriate wrote.

Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, "I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting - a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number - entirely without merit," Tennekes wrote. "I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo - Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. "The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming," Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007."

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

[Conservative Christian]

Does Redcard know the difference between a scientist and an economist?

These guys are economists?!:

"France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming - Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. "Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up' - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts' and ‘sea level rises,' the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac*ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!"

Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: "It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction."

Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. "The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases," Winterhalter said.

Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. "I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong," Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: "The earth will not die."

Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: "To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.""

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport