brenthutch

"Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change.The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear." — PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19 , 2008 With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true. We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2 After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3 The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4 Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect. Syun Akasofu, Ph.D, University Of Alaska Arthur G. Anderson, Ph.D, Director Of Research, IBM (retired) Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D, Anderson Materials Evaluation J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D, University Of Pennsylvania Robert Ashworth, Clearstack LLC Ismail Baht, Ph.D, University Of Kashmir Colin Barton Csiro, (retired) David J. Bellamy, OBE, The British Natural Association John Blaylock, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired) Edward F. Blick, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma (emeritus) Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D, University Of Hull Bob Breck Ams, Broadcaster Of The Year 2008 John Brignell, University Of Southampton (emeritus) Mark Campbell, Ph.D, U.S. Naval Academy Robert M. Carter, Ph.D, James Cook University Ian Clark, Ph.D, Professor, Earth Sciences University Of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada Roger Cohen, Ph.D, Fellow, American Physical Society Paul Copper, Ph.D, Laurentian University (emeritus) Piers Corbyn, MS, Weather Action Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change Uberto Crescenti, Ph.D, Past-President, Italian Geological Society Susan Crockford, Ph.D, University Of Victoria Joseph S. D'aleo, Fellow, American Meteorological Society James Demeo, Ph.D, University Of Kansas (retired) David Deming, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma Diane Douglas, Ph.D, Paleoclimatologist David Douglass, Ph.D, University Of Rochester Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Emeritus, Professor Of Energy Conversion, The Ohio State University Christopher Essex, Ph.D, University Of Western Ontario John Ferguson, Ph.D, University Of Newcastle Upon Tyne, (retired) Eduardo Ferreyra, Argentinian Foundation For A Scientific Ecology Michael Fox, Ph.D, American Nuclear Society Gordon Fulks, Ph.D, Gordon Fulks And Associates Lee Gerhard, Ph.D, State Geologist, Kansas (retired) Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D, Technische Universitat Braunschweig Ivar Giaever, Ph.D, Nobel Laureate, Physics Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D, Scientific Director, Inttas (Paraguay) Wayne Goodfellow, Ph.D, University Of Ottawa James Goodridge, California State Climatologist, (retired) Laurence Gould, Ph.D, University Of Hartford Vincent Gray, Ph.D, New Zealand Climate Coalition William M. Gray, Ph.D, Colorado State University Kenneth E. Green, D.Env., American Enterprise Institute Kesten Green, Ph.D, Monash University Will Happer, Ph.D, Princeton University Howard C. Hayden, Ph.D, University Of Connecticut, (emeritus) Ben Herman, Ph.D, University Of Arizona, (emeritus) Martin Hertzberg, Ph.D, U.S. Navy, (retired) Doug Hoffman, Ph.D, Author, The Resilient Earth Bernd Huettner, Ph.D. Ole Humlum, Ph.D, University Of Oslo A. Neil Hutton, Past President, Canadian Society Of Petroleum Geologists Craig D. Idso, Ph.D, Center For The Study Of Carbon Dioxide And Global Change Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Agriculture (retired) Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D, Yokohama National University Steve Japar, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change Sten Kaijser, Ph.D, Uppsala University, (emeritus) Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D, University Of Stockholm, (emeritus) Joel Kauffman, Ph.D, University Of The Sciences, Philadelphia, (emeritus) David Kear, Ph.D, Former Director-General, Nz Dept. Scientific And Industrial Research Richard Keen, Ph.D, University Of Colorado Dr. Kelvin Kemm, Ph.D, Lifetime Achievers Award, National Science And Technology Forum, South Africa Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D, Former Editor, Climate Research Robert S. Knox, Ph.D, University Of Rochester (emeritus) James P. Koermer, Ph.D, Plymouth State University Gerhard Kramm, Ph.D, University Of Alaska Fairbanks Wayne Kraus, Ph.D, Kraus Consulting Olav M. Kvalheim, Ph.D, Univ. Of Bergen Roar Larson, Ph.D, Norwegian University Of Science And Technology James F. Lea, Ph.D. Douglas Leahy, Ph.D, Meteorologist Peter R. Leavitt, Certified Consulting Meteorologist David R. Legates, Ph.D, University of Delaware Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D, Massachusetts Institute Of Technology Harry F. Lins, Ph.D. Co-Chair, IPCC Hydrology and Water Resources Working Group Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D, University Of Missouri Howard Maccabee, Ph.D, MD Clinical Faculty, Stanford Medical School Horst Malberg, Ph.D, Free University of Berlin Bjorn Malmgren, Ph.D, Goteburg University (emeritus) Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D, Australian Environment Foundation James A Marusek, U.S. Navy, (retired) Ross Mckitrick, Ph.D, University Of Guelph Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D, University Of Virginia Timmothy R. Minnich, MS, Minnich And Scotto, Inc. Asmunn Moene, Ph.D, Former Head, Forecasting Center, Meteorological Institute, Norway Michael Monce, Ph.D, Connecticut College Dick Morgan, Ph.D, Exeter University, (emeritus) Nils-axel Morner, Ph.D, Stockholm University, (emeritus) David Nowell, D.I.C., Former Chairman, Nato Meteorology Canada Cliff Ollier, D.Sc., University Of Western Australia Garth W. Paltridge, Ph.D, University Of Tasmania Alfred Peckarek, Ph.D, St. Cloud State University Dr. Robert A. Perkins, P.E. University Of Alaska Ian Pilmer, Ph.D, University Of Melbourne (emeritus) Brian R. Pratt, Ph.D, University Of Saskatchewan John Reinhard, Ph.D, Ore Pharmaceuticals Peter Ridd, Ph.D, James Cook University Curt Rose, Ph.D, Bishop's University (emeritus) Peter Salonius, M.Sc., Canadian Forest Service Gary Sharp, Ph.D, Center For Climate/Ocean Resources Study Thomas P. Sheahan, Ph.D, Western Technologies, Inc. Alan Simmons, Author, The Resilient Earth Roy N. Spencer, Ph.D, University Of Alabama-Huntsville Arlin Super, Ph.D, Retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Dept. Of Reclamation George H. Taylor, MS, Applied Climate Services Eduardo P. Tonni, Ph.D, Museo De La Plata, (Argentina) Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D. Dr. Anton Uriarte, Ph.D, Universidad Del Pais Vasco Brian Valentine, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Energy Gosta Walin, Ph.D, University Of Gothenburg, (emeritus) Gerd-Rainer Weber, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmenal Panel On Climate Change Forese-Carlo Wezel, Ph.D, Urbino University Edward T. Wimberley, Ph.D, Florida Gulf Coast University Miklos Zagoni, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change Antonio Zichichi, Ph.D, President, World Federation Of Scientists

I will give you all of your AGW points! Yes man made co2 is the cause of global warming. Now what do we do about it? We can cap all of the co2 emisions from the western world and it will not matter a bit, if china mexico and india do not recripicate. WHAT IS YOUR POINT? Are you so dim that you can not discern the agenda?

Just like bill likes to do he stops the datat point when it suits his religious beliefs.

Ditto. Years ago I took a Greenpeace/PETA/Vegan type to the range. SHe would only go after I challanged her "open mindedness" The change in her was profound. By the end of the second mag. she was ripping off 4 or 5 rounds at a time.

not to beat a dead horse, but here is another link that further illistrates the point that some in the global warming comunity are not interested in science that questions their views http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html

Stranglehold (Ted Nugent)

What about nuclear power? France gets about 80% of its electrical power from nuclear power. Surely we can do as well as France. If global warmers were interested in cutting down on CO2 they would clearly support this. If we could take all of the money we have yet to spend on the economic stumululs we could build about 50 power plants, put people to work cut down on our dependance on forgin oil and greatly reduce our co2 foot print. Can I get a hell yeh from Bill?

got up made breakfast, when shooting with my father in law and my brother inlaw. long range with the 7.62 medium range with the AR15 and then blasting away at short ranger with the 9mm. After that cookout and beer drinking. then to top off the eveining watching the largest non govenment fireworks display in america. (4th fest in state college pa)

TEN MYTHS of Global Warming MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate. FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). There has been no catastrophic warming recorded. MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase. FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare. The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that. MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth. FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result. MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas. FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect". Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact. MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming. FACT: Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover. MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming. FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are: 1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.” 2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes” To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming. MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant. FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it. MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes. FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting. MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming. FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature. MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising. FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica. Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.

"I am happy to accept data. I just don't always accept the denier's interpretations of it. " Yep I am with you on that. That is why I dont believe in eveolution. I see all of the data but I dont accept the interetation of it by the deniers

adhomin attack....nice, further proves my point

You make my point in every way. Global warmers use that dramatic footage of glaciers growing to prove that they are shrinking. You point to folks who are losing beach front as proof, yet if I were to point to the cooler than normal temps in the Northeast, you would call me a knuckle-dragging denier and educate me on difference between weather and climate, having just conflated the two yourself. You discount recent and more accurate data and expand or contract your time window to fit your beliefs. FYI, I am an environmentalist who started out believing in AGW, but became alarmed at the ferver with which it was defended. Shakespear comes to mind... "Methinks thou dost protest too much." No black helicopters here; just open-minded thinking.

Man-made climate change now has evolved into a religion. No amout of facts can change the mind of a global warmer. They twist the data to conform to their views. For example: They will point to the dramatic footage of glaciers falling into the ocean to prove global warming, when in fact it is proof of a growing glacier, not a melting one. When a glacier melts it just gets smaller. When it grows it pushes out into the ocean and breaks off or calves. All three of the models used in the UN report predicted that temps would be higher than they are, none of the predicted rise in temps has occurred. The models are flawed. But don't trust your lying eyes. I talked to a climate scientist here at Penn State who is researching GW and pressed him on the science vs hype of GW; he admited that it was in his best intrest to hype, adding, "If you are going to give me a grant I would make a compelling argument for the existance of the tooth fairy."

Unlike Ken Lay, Madoff, Skilling, Kozlowski, Ebbers, Keating and other true capitalist patriots (not to mention the patriotic folks who ran AIG, Indymac, etc. for the benefit of all of us). Snap! All in jail or dead, and the economy fared very well in their wake...without government intervention.

I kept my weapons in the arms room. I could get them out any time I wanted by just asking the armorer.

FYI Hot = Slutty. The question was not who would you like to marry or who do you like, but who was HOT. That would be AJ not JA. See tomb raider and then watch friends to see what I mean.

Add the whine??

Protecting the workers (unions) from their own excesses?

And just who decides how much is too much? The devil is in the details. Should congress decide? Look at the bail out package. Sen. Chris Dodd (D) is complaining that much of the bailout money is going to executive compensation, dividends, and acquisitions. The thing that tempers greed is fear. Fear of loss. If the government covers the loss, it creates an environment where greed can run unchecked.

Yes Yes I think you have it... We just outlaw greed. How simple. While we are at it lets outlaw stupidity and we have covered all of our bases. You should run for office!

Yes I agree but the environment that was created with the good intent of helping the poor, had the unintended consequence of creating the conditions that made all of this mess possible.

I am not blaming poor people, and I am not saying that their default rates are significantly higher. When the CRA (community reinvestment act) requirements were beefed up under the Clinton administration, it increased the demand for low income housing. Increased demand let to higher prices. Higher prices in low income housing rippled up the housing market. As people saw their house values go up many people taped equity and used their new found equity to buy flat screen tvs and other toys, or got into the buy and flip business or created derivatives that multiplied the effect of increasing real estate values. (if you KNEW that the ball was going to land on red 13 you would go in) And that is just what happened. This bubble and subsequent crash was a result of well intentioned manipulation of the markets

so the thinking is that if this story is repeated enough times, it will become true, eh? I think we're at 1000 times already, with many more repeats coming. So....you are trying to say that it is not true? Just because you dont like to hear it doesn't make it not true

Poor as in "I cant afford this house but I am going to buy it anyway"

Here is what the Ancient Greeks said about "Hope" Hope was personified in Greek mythology as Elpis. When Pandora opened Pandora’s Box, she let out al the evils except one: hope. The Greeks considered hope to be as dangerous as all the world’s evils. Without hope however, mans plight was filled with despair and beyond bearing. Zeus did not want man to throw his life away, no matter how much the other evils might torment him, but rather to go on letting himself be tormented anew. To that end, he gives man hope. In truth, it is the most evil of evils because it prolongs man’s torment. So Pandora revisited her box and let out hope as well.