Climate-change 'skeptics' hopeful PM accepts view

[B. Max]

No you're not, you've been to busy talking when the facts have been presented. What the rest of want to see is the proof of man made global warming, not some useless computer models.

But if you are all ears then watch these videos and hear it from the scientists themselves.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

Discredited. Friends of Science are not scientists.

You have just discredited yourself. Take a seat in the corner with gerry.

[jdobbin]

You have just discredited yourself. Take a seat in the corner with gerry.

The Globe and Mail had a long expose on this group. You should read it. Only 19 of them are even Canadian yet feel compelled to write Harper? One of them has since recanted.

[Ricki Bobbi]

The Globe and Mail had a long expose on this group. You should read it. Only 19 of them are even Canadian yet feel compelled to write Harper? One of them has since recanted.

So you were opposed to the letter Michael Moore wrote to Canadians "warning" us about how to vote in the last election?

[B. Max]

You have just discredited yourself. Take a seat in the corner with gerry.

The Globe and Mail had a long expose on this group. You should read it. Only 19 of them are even Canadian yet feel compelled to write Harper? One of them has since recanted.

So unless you are canadian you have no credibility. Well that lets out Al Gore. By the way what kind of a scientist is he.

[jbg]

So unless you are canadian you have no credibility. Well that lets out Al Gore. By the way what kind of a scientist is he.

No wonder I have little credibility with that gentleman.

I drive a Toyota Camry, 2000 model, which I bought used in February 2001. And I don't smoke. Happy?

Couldn't find an American built car?

I suspect mine was built in Ontario. It was built during 2000, and had daytime running lights. At this time, Ontario, but no US state, required those.

[jdobbin]

So unless you are canadian you have no credibility. Well that lets out Al Gore. By the way what kind of a scientist is he.

They don't have credibilty because they are not scientists. Economists? Agronomists?

[cybercoma]

So unless you are canadian you have no credibility. Well that lets out Al Gore. By the way what kind of a scientist is he.

No wonder I have little credibility with that gentleman.

I drive a Toyota Camry, 2000 model, which I bought used in February 2001. And I don't smoke. Happy?

Couldn't find an American built car?

I suspect mine was built in Ontario. It was built during 2000, and had daytime running lights. At this time, Ontario, but no US state, required those.

"the Ontario operation (Cambridge, ON) makes 220,000 Corollas, Matrixs and Solaras a year. "

Look like a North American built car to me. They're also built in Indiana and Kentucky.

[B. Max]

So unless you are canadian you have no credibility. Well that lets out Al Gore. By the way what kind of a scientist is he.

They don't have credibilty because they are not scientists. Economists? Agronomists?

Ok who is all on the list.

[jdobbin]

Ok who is all on the list.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Ontario.

Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant.

Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.

Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Department of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta.

Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.

Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ontario.

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California.

Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health).

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland.

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), and an economist who has focused on climate change.

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey.

Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut.

Dr. Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service.

Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society.

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University.

Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book, The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland.

Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland.

Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Oregon.

Dr. Arthur Rörsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food, and public health.

Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist.

Many of these people are retired, many are not specialists in climate. They have not submitted work to academic journals to prove their work. Only 19 of them are Canadian.

A week after their letter to Harper, it was followed by a letter from 90 current scientists, all with papers and peer reviewed work, all of them Canadian. They refuted the claims of the first group saying they hadn't even heard of these people when it came to climate change. At least they hadn't seen academic work.

[B. Max]

Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist.

Many of these people are retired, many are not specialists in climate. They have not submitted work academic journals to prove their work. Only 19 of them are Canadian.

A week after their letter to Harper, it was followed by a letter from 90 current scientists, all with papers and peer reviewed work, all of them Canadian. They refuted the claims of the first group saying they hadn't even heard of these people when it came to climate change. At least they hadn't seen academic work.

Just because they are retired doesn't mean anything. So what. They can can still look at the evidence, and have, and concluded as they say. There is no evidence for man made global warming. As the letter stated they are either climate scientists or in related fields. My guess is if they haven't heard of these people they haven't done much work in the the field themselves.

The entire global warming CO2 thing is based entirely on computer models that have been proven to be faulty.

[jdobbin]

Just because they are retired doesn't mean anything. So what. They can can still look at the evidence, and have, and concluded as they say. There is no evidence for man made global warming. As the letter stated they are either climate scientists or in related fields. My guess is if they haven't heard of these people they haven't done much work in the the field themselves.

The entire global warming CO2 thing is based entirely on computer models that have been proven to be faulty.

Retired people don't produce work that refutes what you say. Are you opposed to actual studies done for Canadians to see if it is actually a problem?

I'd welcome studies presented on the subject. I haven't actually seen any peer reviewed work of Friends of Science that calls into question the other work that has been done out there.

[B. Max]

Just because they are retired doesn't mean anything. So what. They can can still look at the evidence, and have, and concluded as they say. There is no evidence for man made global warming. As the letter stated they are either climate scientists or in related fields. My guess is if they haven't heard of these people they haven't done much work in the the field themselves.

The entire global warming CO2 thing is based entirely on computer models that have been proven to be faulty.

Retired people don't produce work that refutes what you say. Are you opposed to actual studies done for Canadians to see if it is actually a problem?

I'd welcome studies presented on the subject. I haven't actually seen any peer reviewed work of Friends of Science that calls into question the other work that has been done out there.

I will believe friends of science and the national academy of science who claim that the media even misrepresented their news release.

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000606

[jdobbin]

I will believe friends of science and the national academy of science who claim that the media even misrepresented their news release.

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000606

Mr. Lindzen is paid by the oil and gas industry.

The report he wrote prior to 2001 had faulty data. The new data reported warming whereas the original data did not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindzen

[B. Max]

I will believe friends of science and the national academy of science who claim that the media even misrepresented their news release.

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000606

Mr. Lindzen is paid by the oil and gas industry.

The report he wrote prior to 2001 had faulty data. The new data reported warming whereas the original data did not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindzen

Well you don't know who he's paid by. Even if he was so what. It is the oil industry that gives us our standard of living and drives the economy. You are an example of why we economic treason laws.

[jdobbin]

Well you don't know who he's paid by. Even if he was so what. It is the oil industry that gives us our standard of living and drives the economy. You are an example of why we economic treason laws.

Economic treason laws, huh? What sort of penalty do you get?

[B. Max]

Well you don't know who he's paid by. Even if he was so what. It is the oil industry that gives us our standard of living and drives the economy. You are an example of why we economic treason laws.

Economic treason laws, huh? What sort of penalty do you get?

A minimum of ten years.

[jdobbin]

A minimum of ten years.

heh Perhaps they'll go after Garth Turner for that.

[B. Max]

A minimum of ten years.

heh Perhaps they'll go after Garth Turner for that.

Yeah that watermelon would be a candidate.

[gerryhatrick]

Well you don't know who he's paid by. Even if he was so what. It is the oil industry that gives us our standard of living and drives the economy. You are an example of why we economic treason laws.

Economic treason laws, huh? What sort of penalty do you get?

Yeah, you is why we economic treason. duh.

What perhaps needs to be floated is the idea of criminal charges against those who purposely and dishonestly downplay the threat of Global Warming.

That's like emerging from a burning basement and telling people the fire is out.

[B. Max]

Well you don't know who he's paid by. Even if he was so what. It is the oil industry that gives us our standard of living and drives the economy. You are an example of why we economic treason laws.

Economic treason laws, huh? What sort of penalty do you get?

Yeah, you is why we economic treason. duh.

What perhaps needs to be floated is the idea of criminal charges against those who purposely and dishonestly downplay the threat of Global Warming.

That's like emerging from a burning basement and telling people the fire is out.

Those who spew the man made global warming nonsense when there is no proof need to be put on trail.

Now we have the eco nazi's attempting to silence free speech.

http://www.junkscience.com/Skeptics_on_trial.htm

[gerryhatrick]

Well you don't know who he's paid by. Even if he was so what. It is the oil industry that gives us our standard of living and drives the economy. You are an example of why we economic treason laws.

Economic treason laws, huh? What sort of penalty do you get?

Yeah, you is why we economic treason. duh.

What perhaps needs to be floated is the idea of criminal charges against those who purposely and dishonestly downplay the threat of Global Warming.

That's like emerging from a burning basement and telling people the fire is out.

Those who spew the man made global warming nonsense when there is no proof need to be put on trail.

Now we have the eco nazi's attempting to silence free speech.

http://www.junkscience.com/Skeptics_on_trial.htm

[B. Max]

Mr. Lindzen is paid by the oil and gas industry.

The report he wrote prior to 2001 had faulty data. The new data reported warming whereas the original data did not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindzen

Wrong, you obviously never read it. There is no faulty data in historical temperature records. Historical temperature records don't change. What is faulty are the phony computer models. There is also no proof of C02 man made temperature increase.

[jdobbin]

Wrong, you obviously never read it. There is no faulty data in historical temperature records. Historical temperature records don't change. What is faulty are the phony computer models. There is also no proof of C02 man made temperature increase.

You mean this data that was revised after some faulty data was found? This is the latest. It says "warming."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_tem...re_measurements

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindzen

"In an article for the Wall Street Journal (June 11, 2001), Lindzen stated that "there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends or what causes them" and "we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."[10]

Lindzen wrote that

As usual, far too much public attention was paid to the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of the report. The summary began with a zinger -- that greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise, etc., before following with the necessary qualifications. For example, the full text noted that 20 years was too short a period for estimating long-term trends, but the summary forgot to mention this.

However, while the full text does warn that 20 years is too short to estimate long term trends, this does not qualify their statement about greenhouse gases causing warming as Lindzen implies. In fact, it is a warning about the satellite data, which at the time the report was written did not show much warming. Here is the context in which the warning about long-term trends occurred:

Although warming at Earth's surface has been quite pronounced during the past few decades, satellite measurements beginning in 1979 indicate relatively little warming of air temperature in the troposphere. The committee concurs with the findings of a recent National Research Council report, which concluded that the observed difference between surface and tropospheric temperature trends during the past 20 years is probably real, as well as its cautionary statement to the effect that temperature trends based on such short periods of record, with arbitrary start and end points, are not necessarily indicative of the long-term behavior of the climate system.[11]

Corrections to past errors in determining satellite temperature measurements have since shown warming over this period."

[geoffrey]

While I disagree with B.Max saying that global warming is completely irrelevant... I do agree that the actual facts don't really support the chicken little models currently proposed. None of these models reflect the past trends at all... and it disregards that we are only at the same levels as the middle ages temperature-wise. 500 years ago it was as hot as today. Meh. I'm hardly concerned.

CO2 makes up the tinest little chunk of the greenhouse picture. Is it an issue? Sure. We should pollute less no doubt.

Is the world going to end? Unlikely. Will the climate change? Absolutely. It's pure ignorance of the Suzuki-ites to assume that the climate will ideally remain the same forever. It's always been changing, often more dramatically than in the current situation. Oh well, it happens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocen..._Variations.png Here is a link to the temperature of the Earth since the last ice age. Are we warm today? Yup, but no where near a critical situation. It's been way hotter in the last 8000 years, and likely will be colder again.

[B. Max]

You mean this data that was revised after some faulty data was found? This is the latest. It says "warming."

What they don't tell you is that since 79 the satellite data has matched the US historical temeperture records.

The diffence / correction they are talking about are the unreliable world historical records. The US records are considered accurate where the others are not. Below are the world temp. records, the satellite records, and the US temp. records.

http://www.john-daly.com/giss2000.gif

http://www.john-daly.com/nasa.gif

Global trend per decade = +0.128°C, (Northern Hemisphere = +0.205°C, Southern Hemisphere = +0.050°C. )

August 2006 Global = 0.239°C, (Northern Hemisphere = 0.414°C, Southern Hemisphere = 0.064°C.)

http://www.john-daly.com/usa-1999.gif