49 share - reader interest = high
I am
beginning a list of climate experts opposing the Alarmists’ version of warming
trends. Here is my first installment:
Craig
Idso, Willie Soon, Marc Morano, Dr. Roy
Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama, Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, Space Research
Sector of the Pulkovo Observatory, Joe Bastardi, chief forecaster at Weatherbell
Analytics, Hon. George Christensen,
member of the Australian Parliament, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, editor of Energy
& Environment, a peer-reviewed science journal, Dr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Center
for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute,
John Coleman, founder of The
Weather Channel (now taken over by NBC News and elements who want to
criminalize opposition speech on the subject), Dr. Craig Idso, founder and former president
of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Dr. Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric
science, University of Missouri, Dr. S.
Fred Singer, emeritus professor of environmental sciences - University
of Virginia, William Kininmonth,
climatologist, Australasian Climate Research Institute, Dr. Jennifer Marohasy,
biologist - Centre for Plant and Water Science, Central Queensland University, Lord Christopher Monckton, former science
advisor to Margaret Thatcher and chief policy advisor to the Science and Public
Policy Institute, Dr. Hal Doiron, a
retired NASA rocket scientist who worked in the Apollo Program, and, Anthony Watts, chief meteorologist for KPAY-AM
radio and publisher of “Watts Up With That,” the most-read climate blog in the
world.
Note: Willie Soon has been discredited (Feb 2015) for having accepted funding from oil related companies. The article is here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/23/armageddon-for-climate-change-deniers.html. Sadly, cheats and liars exist on both sides of this question. To my knowledge, Soon's science is or was not the issue, however, only that he accepted funding from those related to the fossil fuel industry. Whether this actually disqualifies the man, is to be seen.
Note: Willie Soon has been discredited (Feb 2015) for having accepted funding from oil related companies. The article is here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/23/armageddon-for-climate-change-deniers.html. Sadly, cheats and liars exist on both sides of this question. To my knowledge, Soon's science is or was not the issue, however, only that he accepted funding from those related to the fossil fuel industry. Whether this actually disqualifies the man, is to be seen.
Understand
that there are more than 3,000 other scientists, with specific academic qualifications as climate scientists, who agree with those named above. Further,
there is a big difference between warming and “alarming warming trends.” A full 30% of climate scientists do not
believe the trends are alarming or foretell of doom and gloom --
making the claim of “consensus science”
a fantasy fact and the entire issue, open to continued debate.
Also, understand that more than 70% of scientists supporting global warming hysteria, are recipients of federal grants and funding - a requirement for which, is their position on global warming. The Left simply does not believe in objective science or open debate, and that is the sad truth of all this. They do not want to have a discussion, they want to control the discussion.
_______________
Related articles:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence - a pro- warming site with some objective numbers.
http://www.petitionproject.org/ - a partisan site, admittedly, but a site in which more than 9000 academics hold PhD's and are quite qualified in the supposed art of critical thinking. More than this, 3,000 of the total 31,000 signees, are qualified climate scientists.
SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists ...
www.climatedepot.com/.../special-report-more-than-1000-...
Climate DepotDec 8, 2010 - This report's release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun. ... There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. .... “The great climate science centers around the world are more than .... “startled” by an outpouring of scientists rejecting man-made climate ... - Also, consider this article out of Forbes.com:
www.forbes.com/.../the-overwhelming-judgment-of-science-reject...
Forbes
Jan 24, 2013 - The overall case for global warming alarmism is exceptionally flimsy. ... The Overwhelming Judgment of Science Rejects Obama's Global Warming Claims ... seen the fewest major hurricane strikes since at least the mid-1800s ...- http://globalwarminginperspective.wordpress.com/global-warming-myth-vs-reality/ The media is responsible for popularizing the fear that increases in carbon dioxide emissions will lead to a catastrophic upset in the global climate structure. The truth of the situation is: some parts of this new climate pattern are not completely understood and scientists are still researching. There are some myths about Global Warming that have been repeated and magnified so many times by so many people that most people accept them on blind faith without thinking to question them or listen to the other point of view. Here are some of the main myths and assumptions Global Warming followers support and why they are just plain untrue.
Dozens of climate scientists caught falsifying climate data for 15 years: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
Charles Krauthammer: The myth of 'settled science' - The ...
www.washingtonpost.com/...the-myth.../c1f8d994-...
The Washington PostFeb 20, 2014 - Irepeat: I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I've long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing ...
Thanks for making my point.
ReplyDeleteFor example...
Smithson cites "the petition project" - check this out. A perfect example of the type of "information" Smithson cites as valid.
The petition first emerged in April 1998 and was organized by Art Robinson of the self-proclaimed "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" (OISM).
Along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, Robinson's group co-published the infamous "Oregon Petition" claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.
Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Fred Seitz, a notorious climate change denier (and big tobacco "scientist" who presented "findings" that tobacco smoke was not harmful).
Also attached to the petition was an apparent "research paper" titled Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy's prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson's son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.
The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."
Only 0.1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. Adding in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, that brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping 0.5%. ... 150 out of 30,000.
That's the level of dishonesty and manipulation we're dealing with here, Smithson claimed 3000 were qualified climate scientists.
What is most stunning, is that he can discount overwhelming data, and most of all real world observations by the US Navy that reported just 3 months ago...
"Over the past four years, The Task Force in consultation and collaboration with broader government and private scientific communities, has concluded that ice conditions in the Arctic are changing more rapidly than first anticipated. ...The Task Force acknowledges the role climate change plays in energy security, research and science, the economy, fisheries, tourism, the assertion of sovereignty, and other related issues. ...Due to the significant retreat of sea ice, previously unreachable areas have started to open for maritime use several weeks each year."
Look at him.... Smithson would sooner believe an Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute spokesman, or a Breitbart political blogger, than the US Navy, NASA, NOAA, or the general consensus of world climate scientists.
It's a serious inability to view data, reality and truth... because his brain is conditioned to think from a political perspective. He can't separate the science from the politics.
There is no doubt his perspective would be reversed if it were Ronald Reagan instead of Al Gore who had made the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth".
This is the same person that gave credence to creationist Ken Hamm in his debate with Bill Nye on evolution. That should give you a perspective on Smithson.
The numbers in my reporting, stand as published. They came from a PRO-CLIMATE CHANGE source. You, what exactly are your credentials, again, that would allow you to challege the survey conducted by pro-Alarmists?
DeleteAbout the "scientist" cited in this post, Willie Soon:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html