Global Warming

Inhofe's report lists 400 scientists skeptical of some aspect of the AGW theory in these fields:

"including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology."

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

There are 13,746 climate scientists in the US alone who are members of the American Geophysical Union (despite the name, several hundred European scientists are also members).

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/11/how-many-climate-scientists-are-there.html

And that's only American climate scientists in the AGU. There are hundreds of thousands of biologists, geologists, chemists, mathematicians, meteorologists, and engineers worldwide.

Does a list of 400 skeptical scientists out of the hundreds of thousands of total scientists in these fields prove their is no global warming consensus?

2007-12-20 10:24:48 · 22 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

any ideas to what about global warming or whatever like what it does or anythingg? :]

Thanks so much for help! [speech not homework :P]

2007-12-20 10:01:51 · 11 answers · asked by נessιcα. 5

Don't you think it would be wise to still try to better the enviroment?

Why do people hate the idea of trying to "clean" the place up.

2007-12-20 09:55:54 · 21 answers · asked by jack 6

Much has been made of the list of 400 skeptical scientists on James Inhofe's blog.

"Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007"

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

Notice the report says "disputed", but it doesn't mention how they disputed it. Well, it wasn't with scientific data. Examples from the first few names:

"Denis G. Rancourt...believes the global warming campaigns do a disservice to the environmental movement."

"George Kukla...expressed climate skepticism in 2007"

"B.P. Radhakrishna...expressed climate skepticism in 2007"

This is just a list of scientists in various fields (many with little relation to climate science) who expressed some sort of skepticism with regards to some aspect of anthropogenic global warming.

There is no data in this report. It is no more than the skeptical equivalent of "consensus".

Where's the data? I thought skeptics hated "consensus".

2007-12-20 09:23:10 · 13 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

A report on James Inhofe's blog claims "Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007"

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

The "report" is just a list of 400 names of scientists in various disciplines who dispute some aspect of the anthropogenic global warming theory.

"The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology."

First off, many of those fields have little to do with climate science.

Secondly, do you realize how many total scientists there are in those fields? 400 isn't even 1% of the scientists in that group.

Thirdly, skeptics are always saying "consensus means nothing". Now suddenly a 400 skeptical scientist consensus means something?

2007-12-20 08:57:28 · 16 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

As more those who understand speak out when are we going to question the idea of man-made global warming?

How about a serious debate before Gore has us move into caves while he keeps his life sytle?

Or are we going to say just because it is politically popular to say it must be true?

2007-12-20 08:50:24 · 7 answers · asked by Max50 7

If one of the problems is to much sunlight is being trapped in our atmosphere because the ice that reflects it is melting why not create something to reflect the sunlight?

2007-12-20 07:54:34 · 8 answers · asked by MassiveIntellect 1

One Volcano eruption produces more pollution then humans have in our entire existence.

2007-12-20 07:41:29 · 19 answers · asked by MassiveIntellect 1

Global Warming - (I'm referring to either Anthropogenic or Natural)

The Yellowstone Volcano erupting.

Another large Meteor hitting the earth.

(Example:

Global Warming - 2:1

Yellowstone Valcano Erupting - 50:1

Large Meteor Impact - 1000:1)

And to help me decide on the best answer, please give me a short explanation on why you chose those odds.

2007-12-20 07:31:40 · 9 answers · asked by Mikira 5

The EPA stands for "Environmental Protection Agency".

First the EPA refused to regulate CO2 emissions at all. Several states headed by Massachusetts sued the EPA, and the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had to regulate CO2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._EPA

Now the EPA has refused to allow individual states lead by California to regulate car greenhouse gas emissions, claiming that they need to follow the less-strict federal CAFE standards (recently signed by Bush).

"New CAFE standards, if they go into effect, do not fully phase in until 2020," said Jim Marston, general counsel for Environmental Defense. "The California greenhouse gas limits will occur earlier - beginning in 2009 and fully phased in by 2016. With the mounting evidence of climate change impacts occurring now, it is imperative that we are take action immediately."

http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/27891

Should the EPA change its name to Fossil Fuel Protection Agency?

2007-12-20 07:06:10 · 12 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

And when will we see that. And will it be reversible with a great and concerted world effort? And which world governments will be most challenged and possibly fail? Which of you futurists see what is over the horizon? Oh yes, and who is indifferent and who is not?

2007-12-20 06:44:31 · 8 answers · asked by JIM 4

Do you believe in global warming or not? Why or why not?
NOTE: This is a poll, and only a poll. Please be considerate to other people's opinions, and feel free to write your own thoughts on the subject. (This is for my sociology project over winter break.) Thanks!

2007-12-20 06:27:18 · 18 answers · asked by Ruby Roomer 2

Make no mistake, the report came out of Senator Inhofe's office, not the Senate commitee itself, as a "consensus" amoung scientists that are skeptics of AGW.

This is a guy who recieved the “Lifetime Service Award” from the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association.

Do you think he is biased? And, do you think he cherry-picked information to make the argument fit his beliefs and values?

2007-12-20 05:54:06 · 7 answers · asked by Richard the Physicist 4

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Complete U.S. Senate Report Now Available: (LINK)
Complete Report without Introduction: (LINK)

INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.


The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.



Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)


This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.


Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.



“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]



Scientists from Around the World Dissent



This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK)



Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”


This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about half a dozen” skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.” (LINK) & (LINK)


The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.



Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; University of Columbia; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.


The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.”

2007-12-20 04:56:17 · 13 answers · asked by Brandon A 5

Today (Wednesday), Bush's EPA denied California the right to raise their own gas mileage standards. This is on the heels of Bush signing the latest energy bill yesterday that required all cars to obtain a 35 mile per gallon standard average by 2020. A very weak standard, considering China already has a 35 mpg standard for their cars.

Since California has so many cars, a more strict mileage standard would require automakers to build cars to reach the California standard, as opposed to the weaker national standard (they wouldn't want to make two sets of cars, one for California, and one for the rest of the U.S.).




http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/20/america/California-Greenhouse-Gases.php

2007-12-20 04:28:13 · 12 answers · asked by kusheng 4

Between 1940 and the 1970s there was a distinct reduction in global average temperatures. It is suggested by some that airborne aerosols were to blame in reducing the suns energy reaching the earth's surface cancelling out and reducing the effects of anthropogenic global warming. Today China is emitting huge amounts of aerosols without the use of scrubbers. In the past few years average global temperatures have not gone up any appreciable amount and have somewhat stabilized (not reduced). Do we not run the risk of duplicating the same situation of global dimming as we saw between 1940 and the 1970s, thereby lulling us into a false sense of security over global warming? What damage will be done to the scientific community if Chinese aerosols manage to reduce global temperatures?
To your knowledge, have there been any studies carried out looking at the effects of Chinese aerosols on global warming?

2007-12-20 04:18:35 · 5 answers · asked by jesserschmit 2

We need oil for many things. The example always given is plastics, but more important is fertilizer. And because of weight considerations oil is hard to replace for airplanes. There are many other uses, of course.

Will one day our descendants wonder at our stupidity for having used it up doing things we could do better ways?

2007-12-20 02:26:00 · 21 answers · asked by Bob 7

Things that make you go Hmmmm. He must not have read this. Or maybe these aren't scientists. I don't know. I am all confused now. Can someone help?
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

2007-12-20 02:24:25 · 16 answers · asked by en tu cabeza 4

if global warming is occoring why is it still getting cold?

2007-12-20 01:38:43 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

If they said it was the Sun, they could get more funding for their work.

Yet, they say it's not.

"Studies at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research reveal: solar activity affects the climate but plays only a minor role in the current global warming"

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/

That's their own press release:

"Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. At most."

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

Stanford Solar Center's own website.

If scientists supposedly slant their work to get funding, why are these guys saying this?

2007-12-20 01:24:15 · 9 answers · asked by Bob 7

Do people really think that we little tiny human beings can cause global warming by ourselves? I find that a bit odd. The earth goes through cycles like this ever so often. For us to think we're causing it is a bit presumptuous. Oh, and Al Gore didn't invent the internet people, sorry.

2007-12-20 00:38:59 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

Wouldn't a good scientist question it and try to prove it either way.

2007-12-19 16:50:36 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

The new energy bill does nothing to increase competition against oil and coal, instead protects these industries from competition while giving Wal-Mart a financial shot in the arm.

This bill does nothing to reduce green house gases. Oil and coal will still reign as kings of energy for many years to come.

If congress pushed nuclear power, then we could actually reduce ghg's no matter how many incandescent light bulbs were used.

Instead congress places the burden on the user rather than the producer while at the same time not giving us the option to choose a cleaner burning source of power.

Which proves my point. Global warming is not about the reduction of ghg's, as politicians will always need polluters so they can maintain a source of power.

The people will be the ones to feel the abuse of power from the politicians.

First it's the light bulbs, then it will be the SUV's, then bottled water.

Meanwhile we will still be building coal generators.

Anyone else agree?

2007-12-19 13:31:13 · 10 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

I just want to know how people with mountains and mountains of evidence in their face still seem to deny the fact that global warming is a real problem. I do not understand how when one is hit in the face with logic they can still choose to ignore it. If you disagree with me, and you think that global warming is not real, please enlighten me with some CONCRETE evidence that proves that it is not real. If you want some concrete evidence that it is go to any credible scientific organization and they will be happy to provide it to you.

2007-12-19 12:52:28 · 20 answers · asked by moxie1352 2

What can you do as an ordinary citizen to reduce the threat of global warming?

2007-12-19 10:09:48 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

Diurnal temperature range (DTR) is the difference between the daily maximum (daytime) and minimum (night) temperature.

On average, during the 20th century the DTR decreased. Average night temp warmed more than day temperatures.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-2.htm

"Observed DTR over land shows a large negative trend of ~0.4 C over the last 50 years that is very unlikely to have occurred due to internal variability. This trend is due to larger increases in minimum temperatures (~0.9 C) than maximum temperatures (~0.6 C) over the same period."

http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/jma/2004GL019998.pdf

If the Sun is causing global warming, obviously the planet should be warming more during the daytime when it's hit by solar radiation.

If greenhouse gases are the cause, it effects both day and night. Increased cloudcover can block sunlight during the day and decrease DTR.

How can decreased DTR be explained if not by anthropogenic global warming?

2007-12-19 08:24:21 · 13 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

Regular incandescent light bulbs may be phased out by 2012:
http://biz.yahoo.com/usnews/071219/19_faq_the_end_of_the_light_bulb_as_we_know_it.html?.v=1&.pf=banking-budgeting

How do I save money, when a CFL costs six times as much as an old-fashioned bulb?

Each cone-shaped spiral CFL costs about $3, compared with 50 cents for a standard bulb. But a CFL uses about 75 percent less energy and lasts five years instead of a few months. A household that invested $90 in changing 30 fixtures to CFLs would save $440 to $1,500 over the five-year life of the bulbs, depending on your cost of electricity. Look at your utility bill and imagine a 12 percent discount to estimate the savings.

2007-12-19 06:51:27 · 13 answers · asked by J S 5

2007-12-19 04:26:57 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

Another New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds ‘Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence’
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

Can we all finally agree that Global warming is not man made and start taking action to stem the tide of hysteria?

2007-12-19 04:09:28 · 12 answers · asked by Dash 7

I'm talking about atmospheric CO2 causing ocean acidification, not global warming. The fact that we're causing atmospheric CO2 concentrations to increase which causes ocean acidification are 2 facts which I hope we can all accept.

"Modeling ocean chemistry under a range of atmospheric CO2 levels, an international team of researchers led by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg found that a rise of CO2 levels to 450-500 ppm would trigger major shifts in marine diversity, with present coral reefs giving way to "thermally tolerant and fast-growing corals". Under a scenario whereby atmospheric CO2 levels exceed 500 ppm by 2050, the researchers predict large-scale losses of corals and a 50 percent decline in marine animal species."

CO2 levels are currently increasing at a rate of nearly 2 ppm per year

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

AT 384 ppm now, we'll reach 450 ppm by about 2045 and 500 ppm by 2070.

Is avoiding this reason enough to reduce GHG emissions?

2007-12-19 03:48:25 · 12 answers · asked by Dana1981 7