Sunday, June 28, 2009

U. S. Senate Minority Report: Global Warming Debunked

Global warming is the biggest scam ever perpetrated by mankind. If the Senate passes Waxman-Markey (cap and trade), this scam will cost Americans trillions of dollars.

From the Inhofe EPW Press Blog:
Over 700 dissenting scientists (updates previous 650 report) from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2009 255-page U.S. Senate Minority Report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 700 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 700 dissenting scientists are more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 and 2009 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analysis, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." On a range of issues, 2008 and 2009 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Spotless Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea ice; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted. Continued here.


kecko1 said...

This is not an original thought, and where are the multitudes of scientists that support the claim. Write up a list with their thesis why they are debunking Global Warming. There seems to be some that disagree rhetorically but without the mathmatical facts explaing why CO2 levels are rising at such an un-heard of level in recent times. Scientist that support the theory of why we are expiriencing global warming put the facts acessable for all to scrutinize in many transparent ways with majority support of scientific community.

What I can't understand is, why we do tolorate the pass through tax from corporations? We pretend like this is general business practice. I understand they are in business to profit, but when profit margins quarter after quarter boast record earnings after expenses(salaries ect), it skews public perceptions about what is fair. These profits seem to reach record highs across all markets of energy & their respective commodities so I don't feel we need to take any excuses why cost needs to be shifted to us consumers. We make corporations more inportant than the people who run them. We give corporations the right of American citizenship but we pretend that they should be allowed to do anything it can in the name of profit, including increasing our cost while not burdening the fault. We force supervision and regulations on other consurmer companies in our best intrests. I understand that millions of American own stock w/ energy components and am all for it, but even in my portfolio, the energy component is only part of a diversified winning strategy. Bottom line is they should not get away with poluting our air and causing damage to our enviroment. Its not just theirs, it is ours too.

Why do we give them the excuse that technology to curb greenhouse gases are too expensive? I am in construction and know engineering, and costs can be controlled from design to manufacturing. Fixes are absolutly possible. We have dynamic and industrious minds in this country who given the right incentives can develope efficient ways to cut these gases cost effectivley.

Isn't the trade component of this bill allows for companies to trade excess capacity once they meet the requriements. Corporations can innovate and curb gases and then profit from the process under the law. Seems fair.

Sometimes I wonder if the reason people disagree with this administration isn't based in fact or even a sense of fairness, but its just to be disagreable.

Anonymous said...

Washington, D.C. (July 17, 2009) – The Office of Public Policy, the Washington, D.C. lobbying arm of the Center for Inquiry (CFI), an organization committed to defending scientific integrity, has today dealt a body blow to global warming skeptics by releasing findings exposing the lack of credibility of dissenting scientists challenging man-made global warming. The dissenting scientists are cited in the U.S. Senate Minority Report, a document being hailed by lawmakers opposed to legislation needed to slow global climate change. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla initially released the report through the office of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, where he is the ranking minority member.

“It is beyond question that the work of the U.N. scientists has survived the scrutiny of their colleagues, and that they constitute a significant majority of active researches addressing this problem today. This led us to take a careful look at the broad conclusions of the Senate Minority Report,” said Dr. Stuart Jordan, science policy advisor to the CFI Office of Public Policy and retired emeritus senior staff scientist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

“As a result of our assessment, Inhofe and other lawmakers using this report to block proposed legislation to address the harmful effects of climate change must face an inconvenient truth: while there are indeed some well respected scientists on the list, the vast majority are neither climate scientists, nor have they published in fields that bear directly on climate science.”

After assessing 687 individuals named as “dissenting scientists” in the January 2009 version of the United States Senate Minority Report, the Center for Inquiry’s Credibility Project found that:

Slightly fewer than 10 percent could be identified as climate scientists.
Approximately 15 percent published in the recognizable refereed literature on subjects related to climate science.
Approximately 80 percent clearly had no refereed publication record on climate science at all.
Approximately 4 percent appeared to favor the current IPCC-2007 consensus and should not have been on the list.

Further examination of the backgrounds of these individuals revealed that a significant number were identified as meteorologists, and some of these people were employed to report the weather.

Dr. Ronald A. Lindsay, the Center for Inquiry’s chief executive officer, is concerned about the falsehoods and half-truths being uttered by lawmakers now arming themselves for a major fight over legislation addressing climate change. Said Lindsay, “Sen. Inhofe and others have had some success in conveying to the media the impression that the number of scientists skeptical about man-made global warming is swelling, yet this is demonstrably not true.” Lindsay points out that Inhofe’s office had misleadingly claimed in a press release that the number of dissenting scientists outnumbered by more than 13 times the number of U.N. scientists (52) who authored the 2007 IPCC. “But those 52 U.N. scientists were in fact summarizing for policymakers the work of over 2,000 active research scientists, all with substantially similar views on global warming and its causes. This is the kind of broadside against sound science and scientific integrity that we at CFI deplore,” asserted Lindsay.

After painstakingly taking the time to vet many of the scientists now serving as “consensus busters” Jordan says that it is difficult for him and his colleagues not to conclude that “this is one more effort of a contrarian community to block corrective action to address a major—in this case global—problem fraught with harmful consequences for human welfare and the environment.”