JBG Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Global warming skeptics send letter to Congress urging members not give into climate alarmists. Below is the text of a letter, sent by many apparently qualified "scientists" taking issue with climate alarmism (I manually inserted links to referenced materials): February 8, 2011 To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate: In reply to The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate ChangeOn 28 January 2011, eighteen scientists sent Web site of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (see http://www.co2scienc...prudentpath.php). That report offers a point-by-point rebuttal of all of the claims of the group of eighteen, citing in every case peer-reviewed scientific research on the actual effects of climate change during the past several decades. If the group of eighteen pleads ignorance of this information due to its very recent posting, then we call their attention to an even larger and more comprehensive report published in 2009, Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). That document (link to document manually inserted) has been posted for more than a year in its entirety at www.nipccreport.org. These are just two recent compilations of scientific research among many we could cite. Do the 678 scientific studies referenced in the CO2 Science document, or the thousands of studies cited in the NIPCC report, provide real-world evidence (as opposed to theoretical climate model predictions) for global warming-induced increases in the worldwide number and severity of floods? No. In the global number and severity of droughts? No. In the number and severity of hurricanes and other storms? No. Do they provide any real-world evidence of Earths seas inundating coastal lowlands around the globe? No. Increased human mortality? No. Plant and animal extinctions? No. Declining vegetative productivity? No. More frequent and deadly coral bleaching? No. Marine life dissolving away in acidified oceans? No. Quite to the contrary, in fact, these reports provide extensive empirical evidence that these things are not happening. And in many of these areas, the referenced papers report finding just the opposite response to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels. In light of the profusion of actual observations of the workings of the real world showing little or no negative effects of the modest warming of the second half of the twentieth century, and indeed growing evidence of positive effects, we find it incomprehensible that the eighteen climate alarmists could suggest something so far removed from the truth as their claim that no research results have produced any evidence that challenges their view of what is happening to Earths climate and weather. But dont take our word for it. Read the two reports yourselves. And then make up your own minds about the matter. Dont be intimidated by false claims of scientific consensus or overwhelming proof. These are not scientific arguments and they are simply not true. Like the eighteen climate alarmists, we urge you to take a fresh look at climate change. We believe you will find that it is not the horrendous environmental threat they and others have made it out to be, and that they have consistently exaggerated the negative effects of global warming on the U.S. economy, national security, and public health, when such effects may well be small to negligible. Signed by: Syun-Ichi Akasofu, University of Alaska1 Scott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania James Barrante, Southern Connecticut State University1 John Boring, University of Virginia1 Roger Cohen, American Physical Society Fellow David Douglass, University of Rochester Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University1 Robert Essenhigh, The Ohio State University1 Neil Frank, Former Director National Hurricane Center Martin Fricke, Senior Fellow, American Physical Society Lee Gerhard, University of Kansas1 Ulrich Gerlach, The Ohio State University Victor Goldschmidt, Purdue University1 Guillermo Gonzalez, Grove City College Laurence Gould, University of Hartford Bill Gray, Colorado State University1 Will Happer, Princeton University2 Howard Hayden, University of Connecticut1 Craig Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change Sherwood Idso, USDA, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory1 Richard Keen, University of Colorado1 Doral Kemper, USDA, Agricultural Research Service1 Hugh Kendrick, Office of Nuclear Reactor Programs, DOE1 Edward Krug, University of Illinois1 Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology2 Anthony Lupo, University of Missouri Patrick Michaels, Cato Institute Donald Nielsen, University of California, Davis1 Al Pekarek, St. Cloud State University John Rhoads, Midwestern State University1 Nicola Scafetta, Duke University Gary Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia1 Roy Spencer, University of Alabama George Taylor, Past President, American Association of State Climatologists Frank Tipler, Tulane University James Wanliss, Presbyterian College Leonard Weinstein, National Institute of Aerospace Senior Research Fellow Samuel Werner, University of Missouri1 Bruce West, American Physical Society Fellow Thomas Wolfram, University of Missouri1 1 - Emeritus or Retired 2 - Member of the National Academy of Sciences Endorsed by: Rodney Armstrong, Geophysicist Richard Becherer, University of Connecticut1 E. Calvin Beisner, The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation Edwin Berry, Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph Bevelacqua, Bevelacqua Resources Carmen Catanese, American Physical Society Member Roy Clark, Ventura Photonics John Coleman, Meteorologist KUSI TV Darrell Connelly, Geophysicist Joseph D'Aleo, Certified Consulting Meteorologist Terry Donze, Geophysicist1 Mike Dubrasich, Western Institute for Study of the Environment John Dunn, American Council on Science and Health of NYC Dick Flygare, Engineer Michael Fox, Nuclear industry/scientist Gordon Fulks, Gordon Fulks and Associates Steve Goreham, Climate Science Coalition of America Ken Haapala, Science & Environmental Policy Project Martin Hertzberg, Bureau of Mines1 Art Horn, Meteorologist Keith Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change John Kimberly, Geologist Jay Lehr, The Heartland Institute Robert Lerine, Industrial and Defense Research and Engineering1 Peter Link, Geologist James Macdonald, Chief Meteorologist for the Travelers Weather Service1 Roger Matson, Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists Tony Pann, Meteorologist WBAL TV Ned Rasor, Consulting Physicist James Rogers, Geologist1 Norman Rogers, National Association of Scholars Rene Rogers, Litton Electron Devices1 Bruce Schwoegler, MySky Communications, Inc. Thomas Sheahen, Western Technology Incorporated James Spann, Chief Meteorologist, ABC 33/40 - Birmingham Andrew Spurlock, Starfire Engineering and Technologies, Inc. Leighton Steward, PlantsNeedCO2.org Soames Summerhays, Summerhays Films, Inc. Charles Touhill, Consulting Environmental Engineer David Wojick, Climatechangedebate.org Bob Zybach, Ecologist 1 - Emeritus or Retired Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBG Posted February 12, 2011 Author Share Posted February 12, 2011 Has this been posted elsewhere? I'd expect some traffic on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I have no doubt that new climate legislation will get bogged down in the House and Senate here in the USA. Yet, I don't believe all environmental issues should be ignored. Perhaps our representatives should learn to prioritize environmental issues. I do believe that CO2 has been weighted too heavily in the climate change discussions. However, I don't believe that 1 or 2 generations should blow through the entire world's supply of carbon reserves. FOREVER. And... I still have troubles imagining what a petagram or a gigaton is. No matter what, the USA needs to encourage more fuel efficient vehicles. Encouraging solar, wind, and other renewable energies just make sense. And it makes economic sense too. We send far too much money overseas for foreign oil. We need to prioritize nuclear waste recycling, and with new reburning capabilities, we can start building non-fossil fuel based energy plants again. Will somebody ever discuss OVERPOPULATION? Anyway, whether or not CO2 is a critical issue now... Carbon based fuels will be a critical issue by 2100. Can you tell me for sure what it will mean to dump a thousand gigatons of CO2 in to the oceans? Talk about toxic waste spill potential. It certainly never hurts to do some basic research. And sometime... perhaps within a century, humans will choose to manage our own weather and climate for the first time since the beginning of time, and I have no doubt that there will be some undesired results from the attempt. So... does our government have the right legislative goals for the wrong reasons? I don't know. Certainly I'm not going to toss more political propaganda back and forth, there is too much of that in DC already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBG Posted February 16, 2011 Author Share Posted February 16, 2011 I have no doubt that new climate legislation will get bogged down in the House and Senate here in the USA.That's a good thing. Major changes should be made based on deliberation and thought, not panic.I do believe that CO2 has been weighted too heavily in the climate change discussions. Definitely. The agenda is to limit growth. Climate is an excuse.However, I don't believe that 1 or 2 generations should blow through the entire world's supply of carbon reserves. FOREVER. And... I still have troubles imagining what a petagram or a gigaton is.......Anyway, whether or not CO2 is a critical issue now... Carbon based fuels will be a critical issue by 2100.Would you believe these concerns were raised back in 1921? And 1974? And 1978? And 1979? Boys cry wolf too often. I just don't buy it.No matter what, the USA needs to encourage more fuel efficient vehicles.I think affordable vehicles are more of a priority. All this feel-good stuff with cars has about tripled their real, inflation adjusted price. It doesn't help the environment for the poor to still be driving their trusty 1979 models. Encouraging solar, wind, and other renewable energies just make sense. And it makes economic sense too. We send far too much money overseas for foreign oil.Great idea. When wind farms in New Brunswick freeze solid (link). That turned out real well </sarcasm>We need to prioritize nuclear waste recycling, and with new reburning capabilities, we can start building non-fossil fuel based energy plants again.Are you volunteering for a nuclear facility in your neighborhood?Will somebody ever discuss OVERPOPULATION?How about cutting welfare benefits off, especially for people who have children under 20? Maybe time to stop subsidizing unprotected copulation.Can you tell me for sure what it will mean to dump a thousand gigatons of CO2 in to the oceans? Talk about toxic waste spill potential. It certainly never hurts to do some basic research.Do you want to pay for it?And sometime... perhaps within a century, humans will choose to manage our own weather and climate for the first time since the beginning of time, and I have no doubt that there will be some undesired results from the attempt.Yeah like the geniuses who wanted to spray the Arctic ice pack with carbon black during the 1970s because of global cooling? Very smart. So... does our government have the right legislative goals for the wrong reasons? I don't know. Certainly I'm not going to toss more political propaganda back and forth, there is too much of that in DC already. You have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Fantastic rebuttal by Co2 science! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter M Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 This rebuttal of C02 AGW flies in the opposite direction of peer reviewed science from every major scientific organization in the world. The troglodytes of the republican party will hopefully come up with tons of money in years to come for massive adaptation and mitigation. C02 as related to past climate change -paleo climatology is irrefutable. And these changes are the natural cycles the republicans speak of! Its really funny. These same people say earths climate has always gone through cycles. And when you asked them what caused these 'cycles' they draw a blank Power in the hands of fools? Thinking back over the 20th century- and seeing what the GOP has given Americans- its seems all the more scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 This rebuttal of C02 AGW flies in the opposite direction of peer reviewed science from every major scientific organization in the world. The troglodytes of the republican party will hopefully come up with tons of money in years to come for massive adaptation and mitigation. C02 as related to past climate change -paleo climatology is irrefutable. And these changes are the natural cycles the republicans speak of! Its really funny. These same people say earths climate has always gone through cycles. And when you asked them what caused these 'cycles' they draw a blank Power in the hands of fools? Thinking back over the 20th century- and seeing what the GOP has given Americans- its seems all the more scary. There has been plenty of peer reviewed studies on both sides of the debate, so why is one side more qualified? Of course a warmist will say "because the science supports my side", and a skeptic will say "because the science supports my side". Its really pointless to try and go for the knockout at this point, when we'll be learning alot over the next 30-40yrs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter M Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 There has been plenty of peer reviewed studies on both sides of the debate, so why is one side more qualified? Of course a warmist will say "because the science supports my side", and a skeptic will say "because the science supports my side". Its really pointless to try and go for the knockout at this point, when we'll be learning alot over the next 30-40yrs. every large warming event going back 200 million years has been predicated on the release of carbon- including the PETM- 55 mya. The slight change in the earths orbit from more circular to elliptical, along with the slight wobble of the earths axis (precession of the equinoxes (very small effect) has dictated glacial periods- as well as the Earth's tilt affect the amount of sunlight received on the Earth's surface. These orbital which function in cycles of 100,000 (eccentricity), 41,000 (tilt), and 19,000 to 23,000 (precession) years -- are thought to be the most significant drivers of ice ages according to the theory of Mulitin Milankovitch, a Serbian mathematician (1879-1958). The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Earth Observatory offers additional information about orbital variations and the Milankovitch Theory. Larger climate change has always been from carbon forcing- be they natural, as during the PETM- When massive amounts of carbon where released from the ocean floor when India moved across the now India ocean, toward the Asian continent. Methane caltrates where 'filled' as they are today- and added to the 6 degree warming. The only difference between large climate change of the past- and that of today, is simply that humans are bringing up the same carbon from the planet and burning it- no difference then the PETM or the PERMIAN event 250 myo. The greatest mass extinction in Earth’s history during the (Permian) , was caused by Creeping environmental stress fueled by volcanic eruptions and global warming was the likely cause of the Great Dying 250 million years ago, they support a model that attributes the extinction to enormous volcanic eruptions that released carbon dioxide and methane, triggering rapid global warming. Carbon - C02 is the thermostat of the planet- too little- we have a very cold planet- too much a hothouse that can cause massive extinctions- The 'Goldilocks' amount is around 300ppm- that is the amount during the stable climate of the Holocene of the last 11,700 years- in which humans built a large civilization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 every large warming event going back 200 million years has been predicated on the release of carbon- including the PETM- 55 mya. Every large warming event has also involved the release of Deuterium (or DHO) and 18O from the oceans into the atmosphere. That doesn't establish them as causative factors of global warming. If the sun goes through 10 year and 60 year, and 400 year cycles... is it unreasonable to assume it also has longer cycles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 every large warming event going back 200 million years has been predicated on the release of carbon- including the PETM- 55 mya. The slight change in the earths orbit from more circular to elliptical, along with the slight wobble of the earths axis (precession of the equinoxes (very small effect) has dictated glacial periods- as well as the Earth's tilt affect the amount of sunlight received on the Earth's surface. These orbital which function in cycles of 100,000 (eccentricity), 41,000 (tilt), and 19,000 to 23,000 (precession) years -- are thought to be the most significant drivers of ice ages according to the theory of Mulitin Milankovitch, a Serbian mathematician (1879-1958). The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Earth Observatory offers additional information about orbital variations and the Milankovitch Theory. Larger climate change has always been from carbon forcing- be they natural, as during the PETM- When massive amounts of carbon where released from the ocean floor when India moved across the now India ocean, toward the Asian continent. Methane caltrates where 'filled' as they are today- and added to the 6 degree warming. The only difference between large climate change of the past- and that of today, is simply that humans are bringing up the same carbon from the planet and burning it- no difference then the PETM or the PERMIAN event 250 myo. The greatest mass extinction in Earth’s history during the (Permian) , was caused by Creeping environmental stress fueled by volcanic eruptions and global warming was the likely cause of the Great Dying 250 million years ago, they support a model that attributes the extinction to enormous volcanic eruptions that released carbon dioxide and methane, triggering rapid global warming. Carbon - C02 is the thermostat of the planet- too little- we have a very cold planet- too much a hothouse that can cause massive extinctions- The 'Goldilocks' amount is around 300ppm- that is the amount during the stable climate of the Holocene of the last 11,700 years- in which humans built a large civilization. Everything looks fine to me. Just read this over http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/ch1.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Every large warming event has also involved the release of Deuterium (or DHO) and 18O from the oceans into the atmosphere. That doesn't establish them as causative factors of global warming. If the sun goes through 10 year and 60 year, and 400 year cycles... is it unreasonable to assume it also has longer cycles? The ice ages weren't cause by solar cycles.. they were caused by orbital cycles and axial tilt cycles called Milankovich cycles. CO2 magnified the warming effect, although it was not the initial cause. There are also paleo examples where a sudden release of CO2 initiated a warming event (ex. PETM 55 million years ago). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 The ice ages weren't cause by solar cycles.. they were caused by orbital cycles and axial tilt cycles called Milankovich cycles. CO2 magnified the warming effect, although it was not the initial cause. There are also paleo examples where a sudden release of CO2 initiated a warming event (ex. PETM 55 million years ago). Co2 rose after temperatures did though. And today with 400ppm in the air, our temps are the coldest of any interclacial at this time. We are also nearing the end of the holocene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.