Author Topic: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming  (Read 829 times)

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22847
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore

More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now 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 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report -- updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report's release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.

The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal -- which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists -- detonated upon on the international climate movement. "I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple," said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones "should be barred from the IPCC process...They are not credible anymore." Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. "By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication," Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been "captured" and demanded that "the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed." Tol also publicly called for the "suspension" of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report. [Note: Zorita and Tol are not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.]

Other UN scientists were more blunt. A South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a "worthless carcass" and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in "disgrace". He also explained that the "fraudulent science continues to be exposed." Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. "'I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded...There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!" See: S. African UN Scientist Calls it! 'Climate change - RIP: Cause of Death: No scientifically believable evidence...Deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives' [Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming -- As Skeptics!] Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3, 2010: "The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency."

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41761
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
My contention is that even if it were true - the measures these loons who believe in this nonsense is so draconian as to outweight any potential benefit to the environment. 

225for70

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3127
  • Suckmymuscle is OneMoreRep's little bitch
We had 10 degree wind-chills yesterday here in CT....There's also the biggest freeze all across Europe...I don't recall soccer games being cancelled all through out Europe so early into the season..

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
i thought 94% of scientists were libs?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41761
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
i thought 94% of scientists were libs?

So?  WTF does that mean?   Dr. Frankenstein was a scientist too right? 


Anyone with a clue knows this whole thing has been a scam from day 1.   

kcballer

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4597
  • In you I feel so pretty, In you I taste God
The UN IPCC has done itself no favors with continuing to 'beat up' the facts to try to get more financial support or fame for themselves.

This however, does not discredit the hundreds of thousands of scientists who study climate change and agree that man is in fact contributing to it in a negative way. 
Abandon every hope...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41761
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
The UN IPCC has done itself no favors with continuing to 'beat up' the facts to try to get more financial support or fame for themselves.

This however, does not discredit the hundreds of thousands of scientists who study climate change and agree that man is in fact contributing to it in a negative way. 

The problem is that the cost benefit ratio that the enviro marxists propose is so draconian, and so completely insane, that most people can't rationalize te supposed benefits for literally what amuts to impoverishing and settingourselves back to a tribal existence.   

George Whorewell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7362
  • TND
The UN IPCC has done itself no favors with continuing to 'beat up' the facts to try to get more financial support or fame for themselves.

This however, does not discredit the hundreds of thousands of scientists who study climate change and agree that man is in fact contributing to it in a negative way.  

Hundreds of thousands of scientists? ::)

Why not just say millions and billions of scientists since we are just pulling numbers out of thin air?

And this contribution you speak of is negligible compared to the flatulence of global livestock-- so let's skip the dramatics shall we.

kcballer

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4597
  • In you I feel so pretty, In you I taste God
The problem is that the cost benefit ratio that the enviro marxists propose is so draconian, and so completely insane, that most people can't rationalize te supposed benefits for literally what amuts to impoverishing and settingourselves back to a tribal existence.   

Oh please.  The environmentalists i know only want industry to pay for their pollution.  Cap it at a sustainable level and make any emissions over the cap a fine.  It's very simple really, Bush 1 did it, Obama needs to do it.  Heck throw in the great tax breaks for companies that come in well below the cap.  Unfortunatley we have people like yourself 333 who are lunatics.  Uncompromising lunatics who would have us on oil dependence for generations and decreasing our air quality to the point where we may as well live in a sewer.
Abandon every hope...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41761
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Oh please.  The environmentalists i know only want industry to pay for their pollution.  Cap it at a sustainable level and make any emissions over the cap a fine.  It's very simple really, Bush 1 did it, Obama needs to do it.  Heck throw in the great tax breaks for companies that come in well below the cap.  Unfortunatley we have people like yourself 333 who are lunatics.  Uncompromising lunatics who would have us on oil dependence for generations and decreasing our air quality to the point where we may as well live in a sewer.


 ::)  ::)

So tell me what is better than oil at this point in terms of efficiency, price, availbility, and versatility.