Archive for the ‘IPCC’ Category

Global Warming It's a Good Thing

July 16, 2009

Are the deserts getting greener?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned recently that rising global temperatures could cut West African agricultural production by up to 50% by the year 2020.

But satellite images from the last 15 years do seem to show a recovery of vegetation in the Southern Sahara, although the Sahel Belt, the semi-arid tropical savannah to the south of the desert, remains fragile.

Full story at the BBC

Playing politics with global warming

June 12, 2009

Editor:

One more reason to question global warming.

We are being manipulated into accepting a global carbon tax propagated by dubious science.

If they succeed in their “EVIL” scheme, your life and the lives of your children will be negatively impacted forever.

Think about it!  A tax on ever aspect of your life because without carbon NOTHING exists.

Playing politics with global warming

Mark W. Hendrickson

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is widely regarded in the media as the ultimate authority on climate change. Created by two divisions of the United Nations, and recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, its pronouncements are received as if they come down from Mount Olympus or Mount Sinai. The common presumption is that the IPCC has assembled the best scientific knowledge.

Let’s take a closer look at this organization to see whether it merits such uncritical deference.

The IPCC’s Feb. 2007 report stated: It is “very likely” that human activity is causing global warming. Why then, just two months later, did the vice chair of the IPCC, Yuri Izrael, write, “the panic over global warming is totally unjustified;” “there is no serious threat to the climate;” and humanity is “hypothetically … more threatened by cold than by global warming?”

IPCC press releases have warned about increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere, yet Dr. Vincent Gray, a member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and [the] level of gases in the atmosphere.”

A 2001 IPCC report presented 245 potential scenarios. The media publicity that followed focused on the most extreme scenario, prompting the report’s lead author, atmospheric scientist Dr. John Christy, to rebuke media sensationalism and affirm, “The world is in much better shape than this doomsday scenario paints … the worst-case scenario [is] not going to happen.”

Clearly, the IPCC does not speak as one voice when leading scientists on its panel contradict its official position. The solution to this apparent riddle lies in the structure of the IPCC itself.

What the media report are the policymakers’ summaries, not the far lengthier reports prepared by scientists. The policymakers’ summaries are produced by a committee of 51 government appointees, many of whom are not scientists.

The policymakers’ summaries are presented as the “consensus” of 2,500 scientists who have contributed input to the IPCC’s scientific reports. “Consensus” does NOT mean that all of the scientists endorse the policymakers’ summaries.

In fact, some of the 2,500 scientists have resigned in protest against those summaries. Other contributing scientists, such as the individuals quoted above, publicly contradict the assertions of the policymakers’ summaries.

To better understand the “consensus” presented in the policymakers’ summaries, it is helpful to be aware of the structure of the IPCC. Those who compose the summaries are given considerable latitude to modify the scientific reports.

Page four of Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work states: “Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group of the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.”

In other words, when there is a discrepancy between what the scientists say and what the authors of the policymakers’ summaries want to say, the latter prevails.

Here is a specific example: One policymakers’ summary omitted several important unequivocal conclusions contained in the scientists’ report, including, “No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of observed climate change] to anthropogenic [i.e., man-made] causes,” and “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

These significant revisions were made, according to IPCC officials quoted in Nature magazine, “to ensure that it [the report] conformed to a policymakers’ summary.”

Elsewhere, Rule 3 of IPCC procedures states: “Documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments.”

In practice, IPCC sometimes bypasses scientific peer review, and the policymakers’ summaries reflect only governmental (political) review.

This shouldn’t be surprising. After all, the IPCC is a political, not a scientific, entity. It is the “Inter-GOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change,” not a “global SCIENTISTS’ panel.”

Also, “consensus” is a political phenomenon, a compromise, whereas scientific truth is not subject to obtaining a political majority.

(Actually, 31,000 scientists have signed a petition protesting the “consensus” that human activity is dangerously altering the Earth’s climate. Consider that against the 2,500 scientists cited by IPCC — many of whom publicly refute IPCC’s press releases.)

To its credit, the IPCC debunks many of the alarmist exaggerations of radical greens. However, its scientific authority remains irreparably compromised by political tampering.

When a U.S. State Department official writes to the co-chair of the IPCC that “it is essential that … chapter authors be prevailed upon to modify their text in an appropriate manner,” the political character of IPCC is plain.

The sponsors of the IPCC, the United Nations, and liberal American politicians all share the goal of reducing Americans’ wealth by capping our consumption of energy with a binding international climate change treaty. They are willing to resort to scientific fraud to further their goal.

In the words of Al Gore’s ally, former Under-Secretary of State Tim Wirth, “Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing” by reducing Americans’ consumption of fossil fuels. Keep that in mind whenever the IPCC is cited in support of a climate treaty.

[Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and contributing scholar with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City (Penn.) College.]

The Citizen

Al Gore Exposed by Congress Global Warming

May 4, 2009

Gore is and always has been a con man.  Google Al Gore and Enron or Al Gore and Maurice Strong.  The Liberal Party of Ontario is involved in the scam. Either that or McGuinty and his party  are completely stupid.

Either way, they must change direction or be brought to justice.

Watch Gore squirm in this C-Span video.

Words From Environmental Leaders

February 8, 2009

Editor: Understand the true desires of the leaders of the environmental movement.

Their hatred of humanity is amazing

They hate Christianity

They hate the way you live

They hate you

Their words not mine

China Building 500 Coal Plants

January 29, 2009

At the two minute mark of the video below, from Australia, we learn that China is building 500 coal plants over the next ten years — One new power plant every four days.

China is  exempt from KYOTO

Think About it!

In Ontario, Canada, the govt. is filling rural Ont. with wind turbines under the guise of saving the environment and closing our four coal plants. ( wind has never been responsible for the closure of any fossil fuel plant)

We are going to close four coal plants at the same time China builds one every four days.

Think About it!

In the USA Obama said he will bankrupt the coal plants.

Think About it.

The Scam is Huge

and

it’s not about saving the environment and it’s not Green

Think About it!

Where is Maurice Strong? Father of Kyoto and Mentor of Al Gore and David Suzuki

CHINA


Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about
?”
Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP

Think About it!

An Inconvenient Truth – The Reality!

January 24, 2009

Editor:

I’d like to thank Norma, a reader from South Africa,  for sending this article.

When I started researching  wind farms, it didn’t take long to realize global warming was a fraud.

As the late George Carlin said – “what do they want? more for themselves and less for everyone else.” (video on sidebar)

That in a nut shell, wraps up the reality of the global warming hoax, and wind farms are directly tied to the hoax. (no global warming – no need for wind farms)

The question then becomes – Are we going to let our ”so-called” leaders  get away with the lies and the bull, that will in the end, destroy our countries.

Write or call your newspapers, radio and tv stations. Let them know you intend to stop using their services until such time as they quit hiding the truth, and start printing and broadcasting some reality.

Enough with the corporate/UN garbage.

America may have a new President but the game is still the same.

Excerpt:

….There is a scientific consensus that the planet is warming ever so slightly. However, another inconvenient truth is that only 13% of the scientists—most of whom are funded by the oil industry, the environmentalists, or far left think tanks who believe global warming can be blamed on Republicans—believe that man-generated global warming is occurring. Eighty-seven percent of the scientific community knows that global temperature departures—both plus and minus—are cyclic events that are not caused by men nor can they be stopped by men since the origin of the heating and cooling comes from the sun and its affect on the Gulf Stream. Another inconvenient truth is that, currently, the global temperature departure, measured by NASA, is -0.05 degrees—over the past 50 years.

And finally, the inconvenient truth is that global warming exists not because it is fact but because its the excuse conjured up by the barons of business, the titans of industry and the princes of banking to justify the transfer of wealth from the affluent industrial nations to the human capital-rich third world nations where tomorrow’s consumers reside. The inconvenient truth is that global warming is a very transparent sham designed by evil men to force, through punitive environmental regulations, the wholesale transfer of not just jobs but entire industries from the industrial nations to the human capital-rich emerging economies where tomorrow’s consumers need jobs today—our jobs….

….When the inconvenient truth of Gore‘s Kyoto Protocol—which Bill Clinton signed, obligating the United States to the terms of the UN Global Warming Treaty even though the US Senate refused to ratify it—became public, most Americans believed that the vast right wing conspiracy was misrepresenting the terms of the agreement. Not true. Under the terms of the UN Global Warming Treaty, 134 of the 185 member nations were exempt and had no greenhouse gas restrictions. That was important because global warming has never been about global warming. Global warming has always been an issue about how to transfer jobs from the United States to the third world without Congressmen and Senators being run out of office. The inconvenient truth is the environmentalist Congressmen and Senators certainly did not intend to lose their jobs as they honored the wishes of their constituency! Not you—the ones with the thick billfolds who fill their campaign coffers. Now, that’s an inconvenient truth. Especially in an election year. The inconvenient question is—what are you going to do about it?

For full article please see: http://www.jonchristianryter.com/2006/052806.html

Word of the Day – Eugenics

January 21, 2009

Eugenics


Editor
I hope this helps you understand the WWF and the ‘green movement’ in general. The people and groups below fund and use NGO’s to convince you that ‘global warming’ is both real and a threat to the very survival of the human race. Global warming is neither real nor a threat.

Environmentalism  (for their purposes) has nothing to do with the environment and the sooner people understand this the better.

UNESCO has control of the education system which means these people have control of your child’s mind.

Are these the people your want to entrust your children to?

Meet the real threat to humanity!

.

.

Prince Philip’s principal collaborators in launching the WWF as a funding and worldwide operations arm of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, were Sir Julian Huxley and Max Nicholson, both ardent advocates of eugenics and racial purification. In fact, Huxley was president of the Eugenics Society when he co-founded the WWF. First, as head of the United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organization (Unesco), and later as a WWF founder, Huxley preached the need to revive race science and the urgent mission of “culling the human herd”–particularly of the darker-skinned races of Africa and South America. In the founding document of Unesco, Huxley had frankly acknowledged the difficulties he would encounter in reviving eugenics, in light of the Nazi genocide. “Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible,” he wrote, “it will be important for Unesco to see that the … public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

The method Huxley and others devised for forcing people to “think the unthinkable,” was to replace the idea of eugenics with the idea of environmentalism. Huxley, Prince Philip, and the others, however, understood that, in their way of thinking, the two terms were interchangeable. During a 1960 tour of Africa, on the eve of the launching of the WWF, Huxley openly boasted that the ecology movement would be the principal weapon used by the British oligarchy to impose a Malthusian world order over the dead body of the nation-state system, and, most importantly, the United States.

It is no coincidence, in the context of Huxley’s remarks, that the man who helped found the Canadian branch of Prince Philip’s WWF, Maj. Louis Mortimer Bloomfield, would be implicated by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Bloomfield, the wartime liaison of the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, ran the Montreal-based Permindex Corporation, the entity identified in the Garrison investigation as the hands-on controller of the Kennedy assassination plot.


The 1001 Club and Other Eco-Fascist Fronts

To further spread the work of the WWF, in 1970, Prince Philip teamed up with a former SS officer, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, already a prominent player in the WWF, to create a permanent funding mechanism for the growing number of ecology fronts being spawned, to scoop up the dregs of the late-1960s counterculture, and deploy them as the storm-troopers of the new “green” fascism. The 1001: A Nature Trust, known among its members as the “1001 Club,” was created as an adjunct to Prince Bernhard’s well-known Bilderberg Group, the Cold War-era secret society of leading North American and European oligarchical insiders–1,001 close personal associates of Prince Bernhard and Prince Philip were “invited” to join the 1001 Club at an initial fee of $10,000 per person.

The bulk of the members were drawn from the boards of directors of the leading Club of the Isles raw materials cartels, banks, insurance companies, and family trusts (the fondi). Typical of this caste were John Loudon, former CEO of Royal Dutch Shell and chairman of Shell Oil Co., who served from 1977 until his death as president of the WWF; Maurice Strong, head of the Canada-based Power Corporation, and one of the most important of the WWF operators; Baron Aubrey Buxton of Alsa, of Barclays Bank; Bertold Beitz, director of Alfred Krupp von Bohlen and Halbach Foundation; Conrad Black, chairman of Britain’s leading media cartel, the Hollinger Corporation; Peter Cadbury, of the George Cadbury Trust; Anton Rupert, of the South African Rembrandt tobacco interests; Sir Kenneth Kleinwort, owner of Kleinwort Benson, one of Britain’s oldest investment banks; and Henry Keswick, chairman of Jardine Matheson and brother of John Keswick, the chairman of Hambros Bank and a director of the Bank of England.

Maj. Louis Mortimer Bloomfield was a 1001 Club charter member, as were a number of notorious scoundrels, including swindler-bankers Robert Vesco and Edmond Safra.

By the time Princes Philip and Bernhard had assembled the $10 million war-chest, the first of the leading eco-fascist front groups and think-tanks had already been launched. In 1969, a Sierra Club official, David Ross Brower, founded Friends of the Earth, which, several years later, would help spawn such overtly terrorist groups as Greenpeace and Earth First!. The same year, WWF Chairman Sir Peter Scott launched Survival International, originally known as the Primitive Peoples Fund, which, three years later, spawned Cultural Survival.

In 1968, Aurelio Peccei, a former executive of Fiat (Fiat President Gianni Agnelli was a charter member of the 1001 Club), founded the Club of Rome, another by-invitation-only organization, to peddle a new, computer-age brand of Malthusianism. In 1970, with a grant from the Volkswagen Foundation, Peccei hired Massachusetts Institute of Technology computer whiz-kid Jay Forrester, and a team of his students, to prepare a report on the world population crisis, which was published several years later under the title Limits to Growth. Using a fraudulent concept of “carrying capacity” that completely ruled out human scientific discovery, Forrester and his students, Dennis and Donella Meadows, claimed that a combination of overpopulation and resource depletion would wreck the planet. The Club of Rome became not only a leading “establishment” lobby for every wacky environmental hoax; it launched the zero population growth movement, which has now devolved into a demand for drastic world population reduction–i.e., genocide.

Source

PRESS RELEASE-Space and Science Research

January 15, 2009

Editor:

I want to thank Norma, one of our readers,  for sending this important press release.

Since I started this blog, over two years ago, I’ve been saying that Global Warming is a scam and so are wind farms. The idea of wind farms was to save us from Global Warming/Climate Change caused by CO2 emissions.

CO2 never was a problem, therefore, there is no need for wind farms – CO2 was chosen as the “bogey man” to scare the populace into accepting the NEW WORLD ORDER!

Global Warming/Climate Change is and was a false fear cooked up by the Club of Rome and the IPCC, both arms of the UN.

Global Warming/Climate Change, pushed by the many NGO’s, all spawned by the UN or UN affiliated agencies, is the vehicle being used to gain ‘Control of the World’ and put in place the “New World Order” where everything and everyone will be ruled by a group of unelected elites, if they are successful.

If you haven’t noticed, it has been getting cooler not warmer for a long time now.

Please read the PRESS RELEASE and understand the scope of the SCAM that is being perpetrated upon you and your families.

The time has come for everyone, and I mean everyone, to call, write, fax. e-mail and visit your elected officials and demand a stop to this FRAUD.

It’s time to fill your local halls and churches and make plans to take back your communities and countries.

The  dangerous gas is not CO2 – it’s the gas being emitted every time one of the “GREEN CULT” members open their mouths.

The choice is yours – Live free – or accept the FRAUD  as reality!

Read the Green Agenda – NOW!

.

Space and Science Research Center 4700 Millenia Blvd. Ste. 175 Orlando, FL 32839 Tel: 407-835-3635 Fax: 407-210-3901 http://www.spaceandscience.net PRESS RELEASE SSRC 1-2009 Thursday, January 8, 2009 8:00 PM Obama Climate Change Advisers Holdren and Lubchenco Are Told Global Warming Is Over Time to Prepare the US for the New Cold Era The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), today releases a letter mailed on January 1, 2009 to President-elect Barrack Obama’s nominated science adviser Dr. John Holdren and nominated NOAA administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco clearly stating that “…global warming is over; a new cold climate has arrived.” In this letter, SSRC Director John Casey calls on Dr. Holdren to immediately reverse course on global warming programs and start preparing the country for the next climate change. Since the early 2007 discovery of the solar cycles that according to Casey drive our climate over a period of about 200 years, he and later the SSRC have been on a mission to get the word out to government leaders and media representatives in order to prepare the US for the coming bitter cold era. In explaining the reason for this first press release of 2009, Mr. Casey says,” There can no longer be any doubt that the Sun has entered an historic period of dramatically reduced activity which will bring us many long years of deep cold weather. This was predicted by me and a few other scientists around the globe but of course we were not taken seriously because of the politics of global warming and the refusal of many media outlets to print or telecast alternatives to the now discredited man made global warming concept. According to national and international sources that monitor the Sun, what is happening on and in the Sun is nothing short of record setting, astounding, and at the same time worrisome. The solar wind is at its lowest level in fifty years. The surface movement on the Sun has slowed to record rates and according to NASA’s previous announcements is ‘off the bottom of the charts.’ Most telling is the current prolonged lack of sunspots between the normal 11 year solar cycles 23 and 24 which is about to set a one hundred year record for time without sunspots. NASA also has long since forecast that cycle 25 will be ‘one of the weakest in centuries.” All of these events in combination leave little doubt that a ‘solar hibernation’ lasting several decades delivering the coldest weather in over two centuries has in fact arrived.” In its last press release of 2008, the SSRC had warned President-elect Obama in its sternest language to date, of the coming cold and genuine apprehension about climate change campaign promises and recent appointments. The release expressed that such actions in support of anthropogenic global warming would create a punitive and restrictive atmosphere for scientists who oppose the belief that greenhouse gas emissions were the primary agents of climate change and that the ill-effects of the new cold weather without government assistance and preparation, would lead to a ‘worst case scenario’ for the American people. Director Casey repeated his long standing position on the next climate change with the comment, “The longer we delay the necessary nation-wide preparations for the coming cold era the more difficult it will be. If the extremist rhetoric of man made climate change advocacy takes hold in the Obama administration which at this point is at fever pitch, then the stage will be set for the new cold climate to catch us completely off guard and unprepared. This will cause many Americans to suffer needlessly.” He added further, “The Earth has been in a long term cooling trend technically for eleven years. The significant drop in global temperatures that also occurred between January 2007 and much of 2008 should have been enough for most observers to finally accept that global warming is over, except that this information was intentionally not passed on to the American people. Also and unfortunately, the Presidential campaign where both major parties continued to beat the drum of global warming and man made climate change only helped to cement in the flawed concept that mankind was more powerful and had more influence on the Earth’s climate than the Sun itself. This unbelievable idea has been pushed heavily by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This and the previous press release are intended to be no nonsense, to the point pleadings for some sanity in our government and the main stream media that have failed to accept the new climate reality. Specifically, it was the Sun and not man that caused the past twenty years of peak heating and it is the same Sun that through a dramatic decline in its activity will now bring us decades of extreme cold climate.” In a closing statement Casey reiterated, “The global warming of the past decades was caused by the Sun. It is now over. It will not return based upon the SSRC’s research, for at least thirty years. It will then return only because the Sun’s repeating cycles of activity are scheduled to pick up again at that time. We should not waste another minute, another penny in controlling something that simply does not exist, namely man made climate change and global warming. It is essential for the welfare of all Americans if not the world, that in light of these new and startling changes in the Earth’s temperature and the profound changes in the Sun, that the next administration initiate a top-down review and redirection of climate change policy as soon as President Obama takes office.” Letter to Dr. Holdren

To visit Space and Science Research Center and other press releases

U. S. Senate Minority Report

January 3, 2009

Editor:

Does  Gore have to be the last believer  in MMGW before we can put this fraud to bed once and for all.

Posted by Marc Morano – 9:30 AM EST – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.GOV

U. S. Senate Minority Report:

More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008

Update: December 22, 2008: 11 More Scientists Join Senate Report Link to Full Printable PDF Report

INTRODUCTION:

Over 650 dissenting scientists 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 231-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 650 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 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007.  The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 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 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, 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 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.  

In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 as the year the “consensus” collapsed. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.”

This new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition challenging significant aspects of the claims of the UN IPCC and Al Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: ‘2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC’ & see full reports here & here ]

Complete article here

I Was Fired by Al Gore!

December 25, 2008

Prominent Scientist Fired By Gore Says Warming Alarm ‘Mistaken’

Marc Morano
EPW.Senate.Gov
Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008

WASHINGTON, DC – Award winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who was reportedly fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993 for failing to adhere to Gore’s scientific views, has now declared man-made global warming fears “mistaken.”

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken,” Happer, who has published over 200 scientific papers, told EPW on December 22, 2008. Happer made his remarks while requesting to join the 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report from Environment and Public Works Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) of over 650 (and growing) dissenting international scientists disputing anthropogenic climate fears. [Note: Joining Happer as new additions to the Senate report, are at least 10 more scientists, including meteorologists from Germany, Netherlands and CNN, as well as a professors from MIT and University of Arizona. See below for full quotes and bios of the new skeptical scientists added to the groundbreaking report, which includes many current and former UN IPCC scientists.]

“I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly,” Happer said this week. Happer is a Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

Senator Inhofe said that the continued outpouring of prominent scientists like Happer — who are willing to publicly dissent from climate fears — are yet another strike to the UN, Gore and the media’s claims about global warming. “The endless claims of a ‘consensus’ about man-made global warming grow less-and-less credible every day,” Inhofe said.

Happer, who served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy in 1993, says he was fired by Gore in 1993 for not going along with Gore’s scientific views on ozone and climate issues. “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy,” Happer explained in 1993.

“I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow,” Happer said this week. “Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past,” he added.

“Over the past 500 million years since the Cambrian, when fossils of multicellular life first became abundant, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been much higher than current levels, about 3 times higher on average.  Life on earth flourished with these higher levels of carbon dioxide,” he explained. “Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility,” Happer added.

Below are the full entries of the scientists just added to the 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report: “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”: (Updated December 22, 2008)

Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Dr. W. M. Schaffer, Ph. D., of the University of Arizona – Tucson, past member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, who has authored more than 80 scientific publications and authored the paper “Human Population and Carbon Dioxide,” dissented in 2008. “My principal objections to the theory of anthropogenic warming are as follows: 1) I am mistrustful of ‘all but the kitchen sink’ models that, by virtue of their complexity, cannot be analyzed mathematically. When we place our trust in such models, what too often results is the replacement of a poorly understood physical (chemical, biological) system by a model that is similarly opaque,” Schaffer told EPW on December 19, 2008. “2) I am troubled by the application of essentially linear thinking to what is arguably the mother of all nonlinear dynamical systems – i.e., the climate. 3) I believe it likely that “natural climate cycles” are the fingerprints of chaotic behavior that is inherently unpredictable in the long-term. As reviewed in a forthcoming article (Schaffer, in prep), these cycles are “dense” on chaotic attractors and have the stability properties of saddles. Evolving chaotic trajectories successively shadow first one cycle, then another. The result is a sequence of qualitatively different behaviors – what climatologists call “regime shift” – independent of extrinsic influences. Tsonis and his associates discuss this phenomenon in terms of network theory and synchronized chaos, but these embellishments are not necessary. To be chaotic is to dance the dance of the saddles,” Schaffer explained. “The recent lack of warming in the face of continued increases in CO2 suggests (a) that the effects of greenhouse gas forcing have been over-stated; (b) that the import of natural variability has been underestimated and (c) that concomitant rises of atmospheric CO2 and temperature in previous decades may be coincidental rather than causal,” he added. “I fear that things could easily go the other way: that the climate could cool, perhaps significantly; that the consequences of a new Little Ice Age or worse would be catastrophic and that said consequences will be exacerbated if we meanwhile adopt warmist prescriptions. This possibility, plus the law of unintended consequences, leads me to view proposed global engineering ‘solutions’ as madness. ‘First do no harm’ should be the watchword of those who propose policy; the fate of Icarus, the example uppermost in their minds,” he continued. “I believe that the enthusiasm of many of my colleagues for the ‘consensus’ view of climate change is partly motivated by considerations outside of science. If I am correct, the truth of the matter will inevitably become widely known and the consequences to science, severe. Think Lysenko and the demise of Soviet genetics,” he concluded. (LINK) (LINK)(LINK)

CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers, an meteorologist for 22 years, certified by the American Meteorological Society, spoke out against anthropogenic climate claims in 2008. “You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,” Myers said during a December 18, 2008 appearance on CNN’s “Lou Dobbs Tonight.” “Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure,” Myers explained. “But this is like, you know you said – in your career – my career has been 22 years long. That’s a good career in TV, but talking about climate – it’s like having a car for three days and saying, ‘This is a great car.’ Well, yeah – it was for three days, but maybe in days five, six and seven it won’t be so good. And that’s what we’re doing here,” he added. “We have 100 years worth of data, not millions of years that the world’s been around,” Myers concluded. (LINK) (LINK)

Engineer and Physicist J.K. “Jim” August, formerly of the U.S. Navy nuclear power program, and former chair of professional standard committees in both the American Nuclear Society and the American Society of Mechanical Engineering, dissented from climate fears in 2008. “Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth is not scientifically based, August wrote in a December 15, 2008 analysis titled “An Inconvenient Truth, or a Calculating Deception.” “The book denies the legitimacy of science for review.  The irony is, of course, the treatise that Mr. Gore uses to make his points, which could only have any value based on some scientific certainty basis, is not based on science nor the scientific method – nor can scientists even use science to review it, or follow its logic,” August explained. “Gore argues we’re morally obliged to support his conclusions, precluding objective review with the same scientific methods that he claims to have supported his work. Presenting consequences as facts, he categorically rejects their testing with the same scientific method.  Should we be surprised, then when Mr. Gore says that anyone who doubts this must be morally corrupt?” August added. “Fighting religion with reason, we scientists sadly can’t contest. Mr. Gore even shared a Nobel Prize with the IPCC.  So, isn’t it ironic? The only truth that’s inconvenient here is that Mr. Gore’s successfully sold his message as if it were science!” he added. (LINK)

Biologist and Neuropharmacologist Dr. Doug Pettibone, who has authored 120 scientific publications and holds ten patents and is a past member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, dissented in 2008. “There is currently no satisfactory answer to the central question: ‘What is the actual proof that humans are causing catastrophic global warming?’ All of the climate computer models in the world do not provide the proof,” Pettibone wrote to EPW on December 11, 2008. “It boils down to a matter of faith that the 30-year positive correlation between man-made CO2 and global temperature provides the proof.  But correlations are not proof of cause-and-effect. Blaming global warming on human activity is terribly premature and any legislation designed to curtail CO2 will likely be misguided, costly and ineffective based on the available evidence. Since there has not been any significant increase in global temperatures in the last decade, it is not even clear where temperatures are going to go from here,” Pettibone explained. (LINK)

Meteorologist Tom Wysmuller, former weather forecaster at Amsterdam’s Royal Dutch Weather Bureau whose “Polynomial Regression algorithm is embedded in every high-end Texas Instruments calculator sold today,” dissented from man-made global warming fears and predicted a coming global cooling in 2008. Wysmuller said during his two-hour presentation of his latest scientific research titled “The colder side of global warming on December 6, 2008. Wysmuller believes that temperature increases of today are distinct from carbon dioxide levels. “Carbon dioxide is increasing but not dragging the temperatures up,” Wysmuller said. “If we controlled pollution now, we still wouldn’t stop the ice cap from melting,” he explained. “The largest contributor to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the warming oceans,” he continued. The December 11, 2008, article explained, “Wysmuller argues that the current spike in temperature and carbon dioxide levels are approaching levels that existed just prior to the most recent ice age. What that means, he said, is that we are nearing a period when temperatures will actually start to decrease and weather patterns dramatically change.”  Wysmuller’s research shows that open water at the Arctic will generate an abundance of “ocean effect” snow, similar to the lake effect snow that hits the upstate New York area. “[The Arctic] will have massive amounts of ocean effect snow,” Wysmuller said. “The accumulated snowfall increases reflecting light, so temperatures will cool.” (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

MIT Scientist Dr. Robert Rose, a professor of Materials Science and Engineering at MIT with approximately 50 years of experience teaching various scientific, linked warming and cooling cycles to the “orbit and the tilt and wobble of the axis of the Earth’s spin.” Rose also questioned climate model predictions on July 8, 2008, by stating, “Clearly, these are not ‘facts.’ They are computer models. They may be correct or at least lead us to the correct answer, but the earliest model appears to be incorrect,” Rose wrote. “Cooler heads [are] needed in global warming debate,” Rose wrote. “Global warming is occurring as it has many times in the past; and it will continue for some years before the cooling cycle begins and the glaciers take over, also as they have in the past. We are trying very hard to develop computer simulations to predict the contribution our activities are making to the warming, and the going has been difficult. These models can’t be tested experimentally (unless we can find another planet on which to conduct our experiments) and are tested mostly by fitting them to past behavior, pretty much the same approach as handicapping horse races. (LINK)

Climate researcher Dr. Craig Loehle, formerly of the Department of Energy Laboratories and currently with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvements, who has published more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers, attended the skeptical 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City in March 2008. “The 2000-year [temperature] trend is not flat, so a warming period is not unprecedented,” Loehle said during the skeptical conference in March 2008. “The 1500-year [temperature] cycle as proposed by [Atmospheric physicist Fred] Singer and [Dennis] Avery is consistent with Loehle climate reconstruction,” Loehle explained. “The 1500-year cycle implies that recent warming is part of natural trend,” he added.  (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) Loehl published a November 2007 study in Energy & Environment that found the Medieval Warm Period to be “0.3C warmer than the 20th century.” The study was titled “A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies.” (LINK) & (LINK)

German Meteorologist Dr. Gerd-Rainer Weber, a Consulting Meteorologist, attended the skeptical 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City in March. “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis. The rational basis for extremist views about global warming may be a desire to push for political action on global warming,” Weber said during the conference. (LINK) Weber also endorsed the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change, sponsored by the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) in 2008. The declaration reads in part, “There is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.”

Atmospheric Scientist Robert L. Scotto, who has more than 30 years air quality consulting experience, served as zone-wide QA Manager on a $300 million EPA Superfund contract, is co-founder of Minnich and Scotto, Inc., a full-service air quality consulting firm and a past member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Scotto, a meteorologist who has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports, joined the 650 international scientists dissenting from man-made warming claims in 2008. “Proponents of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) analyses of recent surface temperature records which are suspect at best, as they clearly contradict much more reliable satellite data,” Scotto told EPW on December 22, 2008. According to satellite data, “the Earth has been cooling since 1998,” Scotto wrote. “This discrepancy is due principally to the spatially unrepresentative nature of the surface records, owing first to the fact that rural stations are increasingly being replaced by urban stations and, second, to the frequent failure of these new urban stations to meet basic siting criteria,” Scotto explained. “Based on the laws of physics, the effect on temperature of man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is minuscule and indiscernible from the natural variability caused in large part by changes in solar energy output. Acknowledgment of this true science is critical to implementation of much-needed practical measures for increasing domestic energy and world food supplies,” he added. (LINK) (LINK)

Atmospheric Scientist Timothy R. Minnich, who has more than 30 years experience in the design and management of a wide range of air quality investigations for industry and government, specializes in the application of optical remote sensing (ORS) to a wide range of air-related issues. Minnich has worked with EPA as a Superfund contractor, is co-founder of Minnich and Scotto, Inc., a full-service air quality consulting firm. Minnich, who holds a masters degree in meteorology and taught courses at Rutgers University and University of Michigan, is a past member of the American Meteorological Society, specializes in issues like acid rain and ozone and has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports. “I choose to take President-elect Obama at his word when, upon his appointment of John Holdren as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, he promised to “[protect] free and open inquiry . . . ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology,’” Minnich told EPW on December 22, 2008. Clearly the best means to fulfill on this commitment is to appoint to the Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, over which Dr. Holdren will preside, several of the more than 650 distinguished and renowned scientists who have openly questioned the “consensus” on AGW in Senator Inhofe’s 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report,” Minnich explained. “The late Michael Crichton said it well: ‘Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. . . . Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus [which] is the business of politics. . . . What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus,’” Minnich added. (LINK) (LINK)

Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences, dissented from warming fears and requested to be added to Senate dissenting scientist report in 2008. “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly,” Happer told EPW on December 22, 2008. Happer, who was awarded the Alexander von Humboldt Award, the Broida Prize and the 1999 Davisson-Germer Prize of the American Physical Society, says he was fired by Gore in 1993 for not going along with Gore’s environmental agenda. “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy,” Happer said in 1993. In 2008, Happer publicly dissented from man-made warming fears. “I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow. Based on my experience, I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken,” Happer explained. “Mistakes are common in science and they can take a long time to correct, sometimes many generations. It is important that misguided political decisions do not block science’s capacity for self correction, especially in this instance when incorrect science is being used to threaten our liberties and wellbeing,” Happer added. “Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past. We are currently in a warming cycle that began in the early 1800’s, at the end of the little ice age. Much of the current warming occurred before the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were significantly increased by the burning of fossil fuels. No one knows how long the current warming will continue, and in fact, there has been no warming for the past ten years,” he continued. “Carbon dioxide is a natural constituent of the atmosphere, and calling it a ‘pollutant’ is inaccurate.  Humans exhale air containing 4 to 5 per cent carbon dioxide or 40,000 to 50,000 parts per million. Plants grow better with more carbon dioxide. The current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are about 380 parts per million, exceptionally low by the standards of geological history. Over the past 500 million years since the Cambrian, when fossils of multicellular life first became abundant, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been much higher than current levels, about 3 times higher on average.  Life on earth flourished with these higher levels of carbon dioxide,” he added. “Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility. There is little debate that the direct effects of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations would be very small, perhaps 1 to 2 C of warming. To generate alarming scenarios, computer modelers must invent positive feedback mechanisms that increase the greenhouse effect of water vapor, which is responsible for over 90 percent of greenhouse warming. Observations indicate that the feedback is very small and may actually be negative. Changes in atmospheric water vapor and cloud cover may diminish, not increase, the small direct effects of carbon dioxide,” he concluded.