My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[engineerdude]

My. That sure explains a lot!

 

Could you explain what the AGW-is-crap folks think the atmosphere does contain?

 

 

From wikipedia, link at bottom,

 

Air, by volume:

Nitrogen 78.9842%

Oxygen 20.9463%

Argon .9342%

Carbon Dioxide .0384%

Other .0020%

 

From a practical standpoint, and in my opinion, .0384% is essentially zero. If you look at the wikipedia link, they have a pie chart showing atmospheric composition - the amount of CO2 is less than the thickness of the black lines that they used to make the chart.

 

I know that AGW people talk about "forcing" and "feedback", that magnify the effects of CO2. To me, and many others, these arguments have no sound scientific basis, and are in no way backed up by historical measurements. And for the record, I am not on the payroll of Exxon, and I am pretty much an atheist, and I actually have a science degree. My science degree isn't in global warming, but then that degree program has never existed, and we are all using whatever science basis and common sense we have to draw conclusions.

 

wiki link:

Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[engineerdude]

I said it earlier in the thread, but it bears repeating:

 

There is so much money to be made on Green Technology that its silly.

 

The only problem is that the folks who run the "Old Energy" companies know that to maximize their short-term profits, they need to keep that technology at bay. These folks are Republicans/Conservatives and they have of course brainwashed all their followers that it's "bad for business" if we pursue these technologies, *especially* if the money for doing so comes out of their profits....something that if they were just a wee bit smarter, they'd be doing themselves in order to hide their "excess profits".

 

The problem really is that the idiots who run these companies got their jobs by knowing the right folks at the country club rather than actually knowing anything, along with no incentives being provided either by the market or government to encourage long-term investments.

 

Sad really.

 

Whenever you commend, add your reasons for doing so; it is this which distinguishes the approbation of a man of sense from the flattery of sycophants and admiration of fools, :phones:

Buffy

 

I think the reason we are not embracing "green" technology" is that it is commercially not feasible. Currently the only way to make massive amounts of money from "green technology" is to get the government to write you a check. The instant somebody produces a Green invention that is better than what currently exists the world will switch to it - that is the way free markets work. Until that time, you can expect only charity from people who want to save the planet or politicians trying to look good.

 

The reason we keep burning oil is not a conspiracy by anyone - it is just the least expensive way to get the job done. Money is cruel and impartial.

[Moontanman]

From wikipedia, link at bottom,

 

Air, by volume:

Nitrogen 78.9842%

Oxygen 20.9463%

Argon .9342%

Carbon Dioxide .0384%

Other .0020%

 

From a practical standpoint, and in my opinion, .0384% is essentially zero. If you look at the wikipedia link, they have a pie chart showing atmospheric composition - the amount of CO2 is less than the thickness of the black lines that they used to make the chart.

 

I know that AGW people talk about "forcing" and "feedback", that magnify the effects of CO2. To me, and many others, these arguments have no sound scientific basis, and are in no way backed up by historical measurements. And for the record, I am not on the payroll of Exxon, and I am pretty much an atheist, and I actually have a science degree. My science degree isn't in global warming, but then that degree program has never existed, and we are all using whatever science basis and common sense we have to draw conclusions.

 

wiki link:

Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

All right dude, I think you've hit the nail on the head, CO2 is practically non existent! Lets figure out what would happen if there was no CO2 and it was permanent, no CO2 at all ever.... Hmmm how about complex life on the earth would die out completly? Whoa, that .0384% begins to look damn important doesn't it? How cold would the Earth be without that .0384% I don't know but it wouldn't really matter would it?

[Zythryn]

From wikipedia, link at bottom,

 

Air, by volume:

Nitrogen 78.9842%

Oxygen 20.9463%

Argon .9342%

Carbon Dioxide .0384%

Other .0020%

 

From a practical standpoint, and in my opinion, .0384% is essentially zero. If you look at the wikipedia link, they have a pie chart showing atmospheric composition - the amount of CO2 is less than the thickness of the black lines that they used to make the chart.

 

I know that AGW people talk about "forcing" and "feedback", that magnify the effects of CO2. To me, and many others, these arguments have no sound scientific basis, and are in no way backed up by historical measurements. And for the record, I am not on the payroll of Exxon, and I am pretty much an atheist, and I actually have a science degree. My science degree isn't in global warming, but then that degree program has never existed, and we are all using whatever science basis and common sense we have to draw conclusions.

 

wiki link:

Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Following your logic, would that not mean that the CO2 currently in the atmosphere has no affect (or negligable affect)?

Do you disagree with the warming affect currently atributed to water vapor, CO2 and other 'greenhouse' gases?

[engineerdude]

Following your logic, would that not mean that the CO2 currently in the atmosphere has no affect (or negligable affect)?

Do you disagree with the warming affect currently atributed to water vapor, CO2 and other 'greenhouse' gases?

 

In my opinion, the science seems pretty sound that water vapor and other "greenhouse gases" increase the surface temperature of our planet. But with total greenhouses gases at say an average of 15,000 ppm, increasing CO2 from 280 to 380 ppm to a total of 15,100 is probably an immeasurable thing.

 

OK sure, water vapor and CO2 have different infrared absorption spectrums. Water vapor absorbs some frequencies CO2 doesn't, and vice versa. CO2 is probably a little better at absorbing infra-red than water vapor - but not like 1000X better, maybe 10-20%.

 

All in all, from where I sit, unless we increase CO2 to a couple thousand ppm I don't see that we could ever measure the changes.

[Zythryn]

In my opinion, the science seems pretty sound that water vapor and other "greenhouse gases" increase the surface temperature of our planet. But with total greenhouses gases at say an average of 15,000 ppm, increasing CO2 from 280 to 380 ppm to a total of 15,100 is probably an immeasurable thing.

 

OK sure, water vapor and CO2 have different infrared absorption spectrums. Water vapor absorbs some frequencies CO2 doesn't, and vice versa. CO2 is probably a little better at absorbing infra-red than water vapor - but not like 1000X better, maybe 10-20%.

 

All in all, from where I sit, unless we increase CO2 to a couple thousand ppm I don't see that we could ever measure the changes.

 

Ok, great, we have a good place to start then.

I got this data from wikipedia, it also lists full references but it brings the data together in one place.

 

According to that resource:Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F), without which Earth would be uninhabitable.[18][19] On Earth the major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent; and ozone, which causes 3–7 percent.[20][21]

Source: Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

So, I gather from your earlier statement that you don't believe 280ppm of CO2 could be responsible for even 9% of the 33C 'greenhouse affect'?

 

Again, I don't believe anyone has proposed that CO2 is the only thing that affects our climate. It is just one factor that we have been able to, and have, influenced.

[engineerdude]

Ok, great, we have a good place to start then.

I got this data from wikipedia, it also lists full references but it brings the data together in one place.

 

 

Source: Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

So, I gather from your earlier statement that you don't believe 280ppm of CO2 could be responsible for even 9% of the 33C 'greenhouse affect'?

 

Again, I don't believe anyone has proposed that CO2 is the only thing that affects our climate. It is just one factor that we have been able to, and have, influenced.

 

Zythryn, I think you've nailed the crux of the disagreement between the two sides.

 

Everyone can agree on easily measured things, like that CO2 is 385 ppm in the air.

 

But a figure stating that CO2 causes 30% of total global warming is very speculative, and very hard to prove or disprove. Based on the science I have seen, I think that CO2, which makes up about 2.5% of greenhouses gases, probably contributes about 2.5% to the total greenhouse effect. I have seen people claim it is much less than that, and people say it is much more.

 

I ran an experiment about 6 months ago on this. I have a room in my basement, no heating or cooling ducts in it, and over the span of a few days the temperature stays pretty constant. I put a 100 watt bulb in a desk lamp 3 feet from a golf ball I had painted black, in which I had stuck a digital meat thermometer.

 

I let everything heat up for 2 hours until it reached a steady state, and I noted the temperature, the golf ball was 111.2 degrees (.2 was the smallest increment on the thermometer). I had a cylinder of 80/20 welding gas in my garage (80% CO2 and 20% argon), and using that I raised the CO2 level in the room to what I calculated to be 1000 ppm. I did not have a CO2 meter. 2 hours later, the temperature read 111.2. I raised the CO2 level to a calculated 10,000 ppm. 2 hours later, the temperature on the golf ball read 111.2. I increased the CO2 to 100,000 ppm and 2 hours later, the temperature read 111.4. Then I ran out of welding gas.

 

I'd be happy to recreate this experiment and detail it here. I have heard of others doing this in a more precise way, but with very similar results. Basically the increase in temperature is non-linear with the increase in Co2 - a 50% increase in CO2 does not correspond to a 50% increase in temperature, for instance.

[Zythryn]

Zythryn, I think you've nailed the crux of the disagreement between the two sides.

 

Everyone can agree on easily measured things, like that CO2 is 385 ppm in the air.

 

But a figure stating that CO2 causes 30% of total global warming is very speculative, and very hard to prove or disprove. Based on the science I have seen, I think that CO2, which makes up about 2.5% of greenhouses gases, probably contributes about 2.5% to the total greenhouse effect. ,,,

 

So your stance is that CO2 has the same affect on global warming as water vapor? There have been studies and experiments done (some linked in the data I listed) which show this not to be true. Have you seen any data or experiments to indicate this is indeed the case?

 

I ran an experiment about 6 months ago on this. I have a room in my basement, no heating or cooling ducts in it, and over the span of a few days the temperature stays pretty constant. I put a 100 watt bulb in a desk lamp 3 feet from a golf ball I had painted black, in which I had stuck a digital meat thermometer.

 

I let everything heat up for 2 hours until it reached a steady state, and I noted the temperature, the golf ball was 111.2 degrees (.2 was the smallest increment on the thermometer). I had a cylinder of 80/20 welding gas in my garage (80% CO2 and 20% argon), and using that I raised the CO2 level in the room to what I calculated to be 1000 ppm.

Did you take any measurements to check your calculation? Without a CO2 meter I would question the validity of the original content of the cylinder, the amount of CO2 which escaped from the room and where in the room it was concentrated in (the floor I believe??).

And, why you tested this against a black body. If the earth were a black body I would expect greenhouse gases to have little effect, as little of the incoming radiation would be reflected back away from the surface.

 

I did not have a CO2 meter. 2 hours later, the temperature read 111.2. I raised the CO2 level to a calculated 10,000 ppm. 2 hours later, the temperature on the golf ball read 111.2. I increased the CO2 to 100,000 ppm and 2 hours later, the temperature read 111.4. Then I ran out of welding gas.

 

I'd be happy to recreate this experiment and detail it here. I have heard of others doing this in a more precise way, but with very similar results.

 

Again, why a black golf ball?

I would think that to duplicate the hypothesis you are testing you would want an object with a similar albedo to the earth (approximately 30%?).

 

And regardless of the albedo of the golf ball, did you repeat the test with different levels of humidity?

If you agree that water vapor acts as a 'greenhouse' gas, running the test at 30% humidity and then again at %60 humidity and noting the difference in temperature may give you some valuable information about the validity of your experiment.

 

Basically the increase in temperature is non-linear with the increase in Co2 - a 50% increase in CO2 does not correspond to a 50% increase in temperature, for instance.

 

I am afraid you may be misunderstanding the stance of people concerned with GW and our part in it. No one, to my knowledge, has ever said that the increase in temperature due to an increase in CO2 is linear.

[Zythryn]

Zythryn, I think you've nailed the crux of the disagreement between the two sides.

 

As a side note, I think it would be far more productive if it didn't take 1044 posts to get to this basic foundation to the issue.

Character assassinations, insults, straw men and such just confuse the issue (this is not addressed necessarily at you, but more of a general point to tactics often used by people that deny AGW).

[modest]

I ran an experiment about 6 months ago on this. I have a room in my basement, no heating or cooling ducts in it, and over the span of a few days the temperature stays pretty constant. I put a 100 watt bulb in a desk lamp 3 feet from a golf ball I had painted black, in which I had stuck a digital meat thermometer.

 

I let everything heat up for 2 hours until it reached a steady state, and I noted the temperature, the golf ball was 111.2 degrees (.2 was the smallest increment on the thermometer). I had a cylinder of 80/20 welding gas in my garage (80% CO2 and 20% argon), and using that I raised the CO2 level in the room to what I calculated to be 1000 ppm. I did not have a CO2 meter. 2 hours later, the temperature read 111.2. I raised the CO2 level to a calculated 10,000 ppm. 2 hours later, the temperature on the golf ball read 111.2. I increased the CO2 to 100,000 ppm and 2 hours later, the temperature read 111.4. Then I ran out of welding gas.

 

I'd be happy to recreate this experiment and detail it here. I have heard of others doing this in a more precise way, but with very similar results. Basically the increase in temperature is non-linear with the increase in Co2 - a 50% increase in CO2 does not correspond to a 50% increase in temperature, for instance.

 

While I admire and share your experimental approach, I see significant flaws in your method.

 

The most significant factor cooling or warming the golf ball may-well be convection. I don’t know the particulars of your setup, so I can’t say for sure it is the *most* significant factor, but it probably is. The temperature of the atmosphere in your room cannot be significantly altered by a 100 watt light bulb, so a very significant factor determining the temperature of the ball (convection) cannot be expected to change regardless of how much greenhouse gas is present.

 

Of course, a planet has no such force driving it toward equilibrium. In other words, the atmosphere you created cannot be expected to retain heat as a function of CO2 because it is by-far mostly affected by the temperature of the walls, floor, and ceiling compared to the bulb. By convection then, your golf ball cannot be expected to retain heat as a function of CO2 proportionally (or anywhere near proportionally) with the earth.

 

Carbon dioxide is both the second most abundant greenhouse gas and the second most influential. If you disagree with this in theory then you have yet to demonstrate why.

 

~modest

[Essay]

Maybe later I could go into more detail, but....

 

Two major points about your experiment:

 

1. CO2 would affect how quickly (or not) the room cools after the heat source is removed. It wouldn't affect the temperature of the golfball.

 

2. CO2 absorbs "heat" at a temperature far below what your thermometer could measure (like in the minus 50-100 degree range).

 

It's those cold temperatures (where heat escapes into space) where CO2 retards heat's escape and ...basically causes heat to back up into the higher temperatures (and lower elevations) where water vapor absorbs heat.

===

 

...more later, if possible?

 

~ :hyper:

 

p.s. Did you see post #1030?

http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/13705-my-belief-global-warming-getting-shaky-103.html#post247767

...similar to Zythryn's points about basic atmospheric chemistry (without anthropogenic influences), ...the first 33 degrees of "warming."

[LogicTech]

But a figure stating that CO2 causes 30% of total global warming is very speculative, and very hard to prove or disprove. Based on the science I have seen, I think that CO2, which makes up about 2.5% of greenhouses gases, probably contributes about 2.5% to the total greenhouse effect. I have seen people claim it is much less than that, and people say it is much more.

 

Actually that's very, very wrong. This pie chart shows the distribution of the main greenhouse gases:

 

 

As you can see above, CO2 constitutes a whopping 76% of all greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere. As such, it is by far the biggest contributer. True, the other greenhouse gasses are many times more effective than CO2 in absorbing heat, but they don't last that long. Methane only lasts 10 years, while water less than a week...

[Buffy]

From wikipedia, link at bottom,

 

Air, by volume:

Carbon Dioxide .0384%

 

From a practical standpoint, and in my opinion, .0384% is essentially zero.

...I actually have a science degree. My science degree isn't in global warming, but then that degree program has never existed, and we are all using whatever science basis and common sense we have to draw conclusions.

Since you have a science degree then, I would think you would appreciate the fact that science isn't always common sense...

 

Let me put it this way: would you have no problem having 0.0384% of your food consist of Plutonium? Heck, that's "practically zero!"

 

I think the reason we are not embracing "green" technology" is that it is commercially not feasible. Currently the only way to make massive amounts of money from "green technology" is to get the government to write you a check. The instant somebody produces a Green invention that is better than what currently exists the world will switch to it - that is the way free markets work. Until that time, you can expect only charity from people who want to save the planet or politicians trying to look good.

 

The reason we keep burning oil is not a conspiracy by anyone - it is just the least expensive way to get the job done. Money is cruel and impartial.

As an engineer--I guess working in some well developed industry--you're probably not familiar with how new technologies are developed. Normally they require investment either from the government or venture capitalists. These folks are betting that putting money into something that does not have an immediate return may in fact return a great deal of money or benefit to society in the long term.

 

Not too long ago computers were highly specialized things that were only worthwhile for gigantic projects.

 

What if back then, everyone agreed with what you're essentially saying and said "who needs computers for finance? You want to balance your books, then its a lot cheaper to just hire an army of accountants with adding machines."

 

Well, who bet on it? 1) Government through R&D departments like DARPA and 2) Folks in the computer business who spent their own money to start up companies that did not appear to have a prayer of being successful like Microsoft and Apple.

 

Conversely what's been happening recently has been that the Oil people who run the current administration have been shutting down Green R&D left and right, while the oil companies themselves have for the most part avoided "risky" green R&D because they know it's safe, and have very actively lobbied against government support for competing sources of energy.

 

Now this is not an unexplainable conspiracy. You're right that it's all about "show me the money," but it's very easy to be stupidly short-sighted about it. I know that there are 60-ish CEOs that think "I'll be long gone by the time the shaving cream hits the fan, so I'm not going to sacrifice short-term profits." But even he's not thinking about the fact that in 20 years he might still be depending on the income from that stock in his oil company that's now getting thrashed by start-ups that are making a killing with the new technology.

 

I can understand your logic, and you're not alone. And actually I'm kind of glad you have this opinion too, because it'll mean that for those of us who invest in it, there will be one less person to have to share the profits with!

 

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep, :hyper:

Buffy

[engineerdude]

Since you have a science degree then, I would think you would appreciate the fact that science isn't always common sense...

 

Let me put it this way: would you have no problem having 0.0384% of your food consist of Plutonium? Heck, that's "practically zero!"

 

 

As an engineer--I guess working in some well developed industry--you're probably not familiar with how new technologies are developed. Normally they require investment either from the government or venture capitalists. These folks are betting that putting money into something that does not have an immediate return may in fact return a great deal of money or benefit to society in the long term.

 

Not too long ago computers were highly specialized things that were only worthwhile for gigantic projects.

 

What if back then, everyone agreed with what you're essentially saying and said "who needs computers for finance? You want to balance your books, then its a lot cheaper to just hire an army of accountants with adding machines."

 

Well, who bet on it? 1) Government through R&D departments like DARPA and 2) Folks in the computer business who spent their own money to start up companies that did not appear to have a prayer of being successful like Microsoft and Apple.

 

Conversely what's been happening recently has been that the Oil people who run the current administration have been shutting down Green R&D left and right, while the oil companies themselves have for the most part avoided "risky" green R&D because they know it's safe, and have very actively lobbied against government support for competing sources of energy.

 

Now this is not an unexplainable conspiracy. You're right that it's all about "show me the money," but it's very easy to be stupidly short-sighted about it. I know that there are 60-ish CEOs that think "I'll be long gone by the time the shaving cream hits the fan, so I'm not going to sacrifice short-term profits." But even he's not thinking about the fact that in 20 years he might still be depending on the income from that stock in his oil company that's now getting thrashed by start-ups that are making a killing with the new technology.

 

I can understand your logic, and you're not alone. And actually I'm kind of glad you have this opinion too, because it'll mean that for those of us who invest in it, there will be one less person to have to share the profits with!

 

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep, :hyper:

Buffy

 

Hey I'm not saying that there is no future for "green" technologies - just that for right now they aren't commercially viable. The second they have a glimmer of being viable, private equity money will pour in to fund development, and no amount of 60-year old oil execs will be able to stop it.

 

I think government spending on "green" technologies is a giant waste of money. If the technologies were even close to feasible, private money would already be there. While its certainly true that some technologies got their start due to the needs of the military or space programs, any of the development that made those inventions commercially viable happened in the private sector. What government funded R&D for the wheel? For the internal combustion engine? How much government money funded Apple, Intel and Microsoft? Money drives our world, and if there is a buck - heck, even a penny - to be made, investors will be there. No tax dollars required.

[engineerdude]

Actually that's very, very wrong. This pie chart shows the distribution of the main greenhouse gases:

 

 

As you can see above, CO2 constitutes a whopping 76% of all greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere. As such, it is by far the biggest contributer. True, the other greenhouse gasses are many times more effective than CO2 in absorbing heat, but they don't last that long. Methane only lasts 10 years, while water less than a week...

 

Eh, you are showing only the trace greenhouse gases in your pie chart. Put water vapor in the chart, see how it looks.

[Buffy]

Hey I'm not saying that there is no future for "green" technologies - just that for right now they aren't commercially viable. The second they have a glimmer of being viable, private equity money will pour in to fund development, and no amount of 60-year old oil execs will be able to stop it.

You've not spent much time raising VC money then...they're lemmings: they don't take risks until a bunch of people sign on, and it used to be--and was big-time in IT--that they wanted to see government R&D money first.

 

If you think that oil execs wield no power well, you're not watching the news.

I think government spending on "green" technologies is a giant waste of money. If the technologies were even close to feasible, private money would already be there.

Are you watching? Government subsidies for ethanol have *created* the ethanol industry! The subsidies have been a small fraction of what the investors threw in after the government did.

 

And as I said above, the reason is that the private money is really risk averse, no matter what it says on their web sites.

 

In addition, investors are scared that the little startup they fund will get crushed by the big guys when they wake up and smell the cash, so they pretty much require some sort of obvious breakthrough (read: patents) before they put their bucks down so that there's something to be able to sell to the big guys.

 

800 pound gorillas can kill markets just by sitting in the corner and looking menacing, but its really tough when they're spending gobs on lobbying to put obstacles *in the way* of any startups.

 

I know you say you're not a corporate shill, and I absolutely believe you.

 

There are words of course to describe people who argue for stuff that's actually bad for them without getting paid to do so.

While its certainly true that some technologies got their start due to the needs of the military or space programs, any of the development that made those inventions commercially viable happened in the private sector. What government funded R&D for the wheel? For the internal combustion engine? How much government money funded Apple, Intel and Microsoft? Money drives our world, and if there is a buck - heck, even a penny - to be made, investors will be there. No tax dollars required.

First of all: see how long it took to build the wheel? Or the internal combustion machine? Do you have any idea how much money was spent by carriage manufacturers and railroads to obstruct the development of the car by lobbying for laws preventing their use (speed limits, no use on streets where they might scare the horses)? Do you know how much money was spent between GM and Standard Oil to buy up trolley cars across America to shut them down because they threatened to compete with cars?

 

Do you realize how much lobbying is going on against wind and solar projects that is paid for by the oil and coal (oh it's "clean" coal and won't you give *us* subsidies too) companies?

 

This is actual activity easily followed if one bothers to actually read up on it.

 

Conversely, what you're arguing for is for "faith" in the notion that "everything the government does is bad and industry always does the right thing."

 

When it comes to engineering, you probably know, "faith" is usually not a very good thing to depend on....

 

They bear the mandate; they must sweep my way, and marshal me to knavery, ;)

Buffy

[Flying Binghi]

Some more skeptics -

 

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

 

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

 

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

 

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

 

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

 

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

 

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

 

“After reading [uN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

 

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

 

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

 

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

 

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

 

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

 

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # #

These qoutes are via an article here - TruthNews.us Blog Archive UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

 

 

U. S. Senate Minority Report:

 

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

Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008

 

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=37283205-c4eb-4523-b1d3-c6e8faf14e84