An open letter to Prime Minister Harper

[betsy]

OPEN KYOTO TO DEBATE

Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming

Special to the Financial Post

An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:

Dear Prime Minister:

As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled.

It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.

We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.

We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.

CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources

- - -

Sincerely,

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.

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

Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

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

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

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

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

Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta

Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

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

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists

Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

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

Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.

Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

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. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment

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. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand

Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.

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, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

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. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

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

Dr. Arthur Rorsch, 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

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

© National Post 2006

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financi...be-4db87559d605

--------

So, let's not wave that so-called "peer-review journal" as proof!

[BC_chick]

Oh look, just what the board desperately needed - a Harper vs the environment thread.

[betsy]

Oh look, just what the board desperately needed - a Harper vs the environment thread.

Be quiet. I'm still trying to edit. Lol!

[geoffrey]

I think these people are on the anti-Kyoto side BC Chick.

[BC_chick]

I think these people are on the anti-Kyoto side BC Chick.

Yes, I realise that. Still doesn't mean they deserve their own thread. My thread on Dion being the same old Liberal or new has already been hijacked in this direction.

[ScottSA]

I think these people are on the anti-Kyoto side BC Chick.

Yes, I realise that. Still doesn't mean they deserve their own thread. My thread on Dion being the same old Liberal or new has already been hijacked in this direction.

Well then, I guess we can expect you to ignore this thread.

More and more scientists are surfacing in opposition to this entire global warming circus; it's just a matter of time before the backlash arrives. Quite possibly just in time for the next election.

[Figleaf]

Who cares what a bunch of crackpots think?

[BC_chick]

More and more scientists are surfacing in opposition to this entire global warming circus; it's just a matter of time before the backlash arrives. Quite possibly just in time for the next election.

Just last month there was a consensus amongst UN scientist, so I don't know where this "more and more" is coming from. As for your "predictions," yeah, okay. My crystal-ball says differently!

[betsy]

I think these people are on the anti-Kyoto side BC Chick.

Yes, I realise that. Still doesn't mean they deserve their own thread. My thread on Dion being the same old Liberal or new has already been hijacked in this direction.

Well MY THREAD is not about Dion! It was out of respect for your thread as well that I decided to create this one - not that it does not highly deserve a thread of its own!

Anyway, do we need authorisation from you as to what or who deserves their own thread?

[betsy]

More and more scientists are surfacing in opposition to this entire global warming circus; it's just a matter of time before the backlash arrives. Quite possibly just in time for the next election.

Just last month there was a consensus amongst UN scientist, so I don't know where this "more and more" is coming from. As for your "predictions," yeah, okay. My crystal-ball says differently!

Why don't you bring out the names from your crystal ball? I'll even give you the permision to post them on my thread! Just so you'll stop your irritating whining.

[betsy]

My crystal-ball says differently!

Yeah, but the problem is, you don't want to know anything differently! You embrace Kyoto with your blinders on!

You're like a child who's afraid to look under his bed....because he's afraid he might find something he won't like.

[BC_chick]

The Denial Machine, on the Fifth Estate, touched on the topic of the naysayers....

Who is keeping the debate of global warming alive?

The documentary shows how fossil fuel corporations have kept the global warming debate alive long after most scientists believed that global warming was real and had potentially catastrophic consequences. It shows that companies such as Exxon Mobil are working with top public relations firms and using many of the same tactics and personnel as those employed by Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds to dispute the cigarette-cancer link in the 1990s. Exxon Mobil sought out those willing to question the science behind climate change, providing funding for some of them, their organizations and their studies.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html

In the program, they showed a listing of funding, as provided on the website of companies such as Exxon (and its Canadian subsidiary, Esso), going to firms where these "experts" came up with contradicting statements against GW.

They likened it to so-called experts who denied the harm in cigarette-smoking when it was initially suggested that tobacco is harmful. Those "experts" were also paid to say what they did.

[BC_chick]

You embrace Kyoto with your blinders on!

I do?

[betsy]

Opponents of the "Consensus" on Anthropogenic Global Warming

Sudha Shenoy

"Contrary to what one often hears, opponents of the ‘scientific consensus’ promoted by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are not self-published kooks & cranks. In view of the heat that this statement seems to generate, it is necessary to spell out & clarify what is involved (for careful readers): There are many established scientists who seriously question its procedures & arguments. See, for example, the following:

1. Dr John Everett, now a consulting oceanographer; also involved with the IPCC as reviewer, etc. This contains much useful info. Dr Everett shares the IPCC notion that carbon emissions should be reduced, but he does not agree that humans are the major cause of undesirable climate change. Good review of the main issues, including the IPCC & its procedures, esp the famous 'scientific consensus'. Provides good background/context for lay inquirers.

2. Dr Roger Pielke, Sr. has an excellent blog which lists, summarises, comments on scientific papers (from proper journals) that both support/question the IPCC consensus. Really valuable: a continuing annotated bibliography."

http://blog.mises.org/archives/006620.asp

[Who's Doing What?]

CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment,

Huh???

Is this letter a bit dated?

[BC_chick]

Why don't you bring out the names from your crystal ball? I'll even give you the permision to post them on my thread! Just so you'll stop your irritating whining.

Easy there sunshine, for someone who admittedly doesn't understand half the time what I say, I wouldn't get so lippy.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatec...2004768,00.html

Here's the pertinent part:

Who wrote it?

The report has around 130 lead authors, including meteorologists and climatologists from across the world.

The three reports will bring together the work of hundreds of scientists. More than 800 scientists have contributed, and more than 450 lead authors from more than 130 countries have been involved. At least 2,500 expert reviewers have looked over, and commented on, the draft versions.

The IPCC is an intergovernmental body, and its reports are reviewed by governments as well as experts. They were given the opportunity to comment on drafts of the report, and the lead authors will have taken into account their contributions when putting together the final version.

[bush_cheney2004]

"UN scientists" is an oxymoron...the IPCC's credibility has been serioulsy weakened since the Mann "hockey-stick" fiasco, to wit:

Clearly, the IPCC has become a political advocacy group rather than an impartial science group. It now seems the IPCC was a political advocacy group from its inception.

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2wee...-03-24/ipcc.htm

[ScottSA]

Every scientist with an opinion is funded by someone, or else they'd be washing dishes. To say that scientists who argue against global warming are paid lackeys of G&O companies is as silly as saying that scientists who argue for it are lackeys of the Sieraa Club or the UN, which is where much of their funding comes from. And if this is the case; if scientists can simply be bought of by the highest bidder; then what's the point of listening to them at all?

There is not a consensus...there never was. There may be a rough consensus that global warming is taking place, as it did many times in the past, but there is certainly not a consensus that human emissions are causing or even appreciably affecting it. Nor is there any kind of consensus at all that Kyoto is going to fix it even if there were no other debates. In fact, many GW advocates now openly admit that Kyoto is not the answer. I know it's hip and liberal and "openminded" to believe anything the hemp sandal wearing crowd says, but even the IPCC is revising downwards its apocalyptic predictions, and it's about as one-sided as it gets.

[runningdog]

My crystal-ball says differently!

Yeah, but the problem is, you don't want to know anything differently! You embrace Kyoto with your blinders on!

You're like a child who's afraid to look under his bed....because he's afraid he might find something he won't like.

sorta like the anti 911 conspiracy crowd?...WHAP! (sorry for re-beating that dead horse lol)

[betsy]

Why don't you bring out the names from your crystal ball? I'll even give you the permision to post them on my thread! Just so you'll stop your irritating whining.

Easy there sunshine, for someone who admittedly doesn't understand half the time what I say, I wouldn't get so lippy.

Well, see? Now we're debating! And you wanted to insert this in your Dion thingy? Mind you, nothing is stopping you from posting your reply to this thread in your thread. LOL.

You've got to admit, you were way off back there telling that this does not deserve to have its own thread. Like, who made you boss? Rudeness begets rudeness. So you know where the lip came from!

Now zip your lip and let's get on with the topic!

[jdobbin]

So, let's not wave that so-called "peer-review journal" as proof!

We have gone over this list of scientists before. Many of them are former professors and have not done peer reviewed work for a very long time.

[betsy]

Global Climate Change Facts: The Truth, The Consensus, and the Skeptics

What are the views of the IPCC Process by the Skeptics?

Very Few Scientists. Few scientists are actually involved in writing the materials, perhaps a few dozen. Usually there is one real leader, a Chair or Co-Chair and 2 or 3 titular co-chairs that often are present to provide balance for the developing nations. Because of skill or language barriers they may not be greatly involved. Lead Authors are usually involved in just one piece of the section or chapter. These few people, depending on the breadth of the chapter, prepare the first and subsequent drafts and the Executive Summary that feeds into the SPM, long before the draft chapters have been through national reviews. Even here, the Co-Chairs decide which inputs are to be accepted, or make recommendations that usually are sustained, during plenary sessions. Yes, thousands of scientists review the IPCC documents, but usually only those parts that impinge on their own expertise, which is usually quite narrow.

Overstatement of Risks and Impacts. We know from the paleo record that the Earth routinely goes through climate swings greater than IPCC projects, yet IPCC does not go far enough in correcting overstatements in its own documents and in those of the press. There will be winners and losers, but always we hear only of the losses. Balance is missing. Things will be different, but not necessarily worse. For example, sea level rise has been happening since the end of the last ice age, and there is little evidence of any significant acceleration, yet most people believe that global warming will flood all coastal areas. The areas may flood, just as Georges Bank is now deep beneath the Atlantic, if this unusually long period in between ice ages continues and we see warmth as great as the last interglacial, but flooding won't be caused by human-derived warming, although it may contribute. Another example is the great numbers of reports about Antarctica warming, yet the latest IPCC document shows that there is no evidence of any change in temperature or ice coverage.

Too Many People are Excluded or Their Input not Valued. This includes astronomers and geologists. Some times the exclusion is real or just perceived. Over time this tends to make the inside group of IPCC scientists more uniform in their beliefs while adding to the anti-IPCC consensus.

Pressure is Placed on People Who Disagree with the IPCC Majority. This is evidenced by the attempted removal of at least 4 US state climatologists whose Governors have decided that conformance to the consensus view is required. The Policy Statement of their Association states that the natural variability in the climate system is very strong, that we lack the ability to predict greater than about 10 years into the future, and it is essential to collect data necessary to know if the climate is changing.

The process leading to the Summary for Policy Makers is too Political. The Skeptics have more trouble with the SPM than the underlying reports. It is not too affectionately called "SPAM". Even though the Scientists are present during finalization, and have sufficient authority to make sure they can live with it, many of the national delegations work to accomplish their policy objectives through the report. Some Skeptics have responded by developing an Independent SPM, based on the same underlying IPCC science documents, but with very different interpretations. An excellent report by the Earth Negotiations Bulletin sheds light on the process. It is recommended reading. An excerpt follows from their report of the approval meeting of the IPCC SPM for WG1 (2007):

"Participants discussed whether it would be clearer to state that warming of the climate system is “unequivocal” or “evident.” Participants agreed to state that warming is “unequivocal.” Canada, with Germany and Switzerland, suggested adding a reference to the accelerating trend of warming. China, New Zealand, and South Africa, supported by the Coordinating Lead Authors, opposed this, given the possibility of decadal variability, and the reference was not included in this section.

On text noting high decadal variability in Arctic temperatures, Canada, supported by Norway, suggested removing a specific reference to a warm period observed from 1925 to 1945. The Coordinating Lead Authors explained that “climate sceptics” often point to this warm spell to question the IPCC for not acknowledging such warm spells. Participants agreed to keep the reference."

What Does the Consensus Say About the Skeptics?

On Somebody's Payroll. Many press articles have been written to say that scientists who disagree do so because they are being supported by oil companies or some other group with a stake in the outcome. The counter argument is that most consensus scientists have funding derived from government or university sources that are directly based on public concern and fear. It is most likely that nearly all scientists say and write that which they do because they believe it to be true. Money, whether a Federal grant, or a corporate grant, will flow to support an avenue of inquiry believed in the grantor's interest. Science is not bought in advance (usually).

Not Mainstream Scientists. The skeptics are discredited often by allegations that they are not doing work that is germane to the climate change work, or that they are inexperienced. The countering allegation is that since one or more of any reviewers for the main scientific journals are likely to be members of the consensus, any work showng the consensus view is wrong cannot be published in a primary journal. One fact is that many of the mainline skeptics are full professors involved in climate research at major universities.

Disproportionate Press Coverage. Consensus scientists and their allies decry all the attention the Skeptics get, when they are so few. Perhaps they are perceived to be so few because Consensus people do not see them in the room and do not realize how numerous they are becoming. Conversely the Skeptics have reached critical mass and, not seeing any consensus members in their own midst, see themselves as the true consensus. Of course, the press loves a controversy. It, along with fear, are two primary attributes that expand the audience. If anyone believes the Skeptics are some tiny minority, try using your favorite search engine to search for climate skeptics. The search will show dozens or hundreds of pro and con Skeptic arguments and websites. It will show some of the hype and hysteria on all sides of the climate arguments, as well as legitimate scientific sites and discussion forums.

Is Global Warming Bad ?

The IPCC 2007 reports suggest there will be more losers than winners.The IPCC process includes many unlikely scenarios. These worst-case estimates also have associated impacts, from benign to worst-case. Thus we get the 5% worst impacts that have a 5% chance of happening (a combined 0.25% likelihood) equally discussed with benign changes that are reasonable to expect. By the time summaries are written, and press releases, only the bad ieffects are presented. This leads to a gross exaggeration of the problems.

Global Warming Will Actually Have More Winners then Losers. Throughout the history of human life, the Earth's livability has always been better when the climate has been warmer than cooler. Human populations have expanded the most when the Earth warmed and turned greener, whether during the middle ages or durning the last 2 decades. Whether it is a fish in the ocean, a shrimp in an aquaculture pond, or a bean on a vine, it will grow faster when it is warmer, all things being equal. Humans will be quick to take advantage of a warmer climate and to adjust if it gets too warm in an area. More crops grow where it is warm or hot than in frozen ground, and CO2 is a primary food of plants - basic facts that seem forgotten.

Even now, NASA satellites show that the Earth has become 6% greener as the world has warmed over the past 20 years: "Our study proposes climatic changes as the leading cause for the increases in plant growth over the last two decades, with lesser contribution from carbon dioxide fertilization and forest re-growth" . Further, a May 2007 Nature paper shows that preciptation increases 6.5% per degree C rise, not the 1-3% used in models, making the Earth 3X wetter than models forecast. Deserts, as is known for prior warm periods, will be wetter, not drier.

http://climatechangefacts.info/index.htm

[BC_chick]

Every scientist with an opinion is funded by someone, or else they'd be washing dishes. To say that scientists who argue against global warming are paid lackeys of G&O companies is as silly as saying that scientists who argue for it are lackeys of the Sieraa Club or the UN, which is where much of their funding comes from. And if this is the case; if scientists can simply be bought of by the highest bidder; then what's the point of listening to them at all?

There is not a consensus...there never was. There may be a rough consensus that global warming is taking place, as it did many times in the past, but there is certainly not a consensus that human emissions are causing or even appreciably affecting it. Nor is there any kind of consensus at all that Kyoto is going to fix it even if there were no other debates. In fact, many GW advocates now openly admit that Kyoto is not the answer. I know it's hip and liberal and "openminded" to believe anything the hemp sandal wearing crowd says, but even the IPCC is revising downwards its apocalyptic predictions, and it's about as one-sided as it gets.

Kyoto may or may not be the answer, that's not what I'm arguing here, I'm arguing about the number of peer-reviewed scientific journals which agree with human causes of GW vs. the others. You are implying that they are getting their funding from environment groups at the same time that you are neither denying nor confirming that the naysayers are getting their funding from special interest groups.

Are you implying that with the billions of dollars in revenue earned by the special interests groups, a handful of scientists who are on the fringes of the community is the best they can come up with..... meanwhile the environmental groups somehow have to resources to pay off the thousands of scientists who argue otherwise?

[BC_chick]

Now zip your lip and let's get on with the topic!

Given that I put forth an argument in the quote to which you are responding, and you are doing nothing but further name-calling, I'd say.... your turn. Practice what you preach.

[jdobbin]

1. Dr John Everett, now a consulting oceanographer; also involved with the IPCC as reviewer, etc. This contains much useful info. Dr Everett shares the IPCC notion that carbon emissions should be reduced, but he does not agree that humans are the major cause of undesirable climate change. Good review of the main issues, including the IPCC & its procedures, esp the famous 'scientific consensus'. Provides good background/context for lay inquirers.

Dr. Everett is not an opponent of reducing emissions.

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/Media/...ony_Everett.pdf