Anti Global Warming Sect??

The above two posts demonstrate how right you are. Paragraph after paragraph of rant, and not one single peer-reviewed paper cited.

If you can, search youtube (or metacafe or google video etc) for a 40 minute lecture called: "Scam of the Great Global Warming Swindle". It points to some of the fallacies in the film it talks about. You should find it quite interesting.

Here is a collection of articles outlining the global warming issue and hopefully giving some insights into the problems that exist...

http://www.stuffintheair.com/globle-warming.html

Hope these help.

I would say being skeptical about the global warming hysteria is anything but a sect. I am a skeptic, and a trained one at that. I am with about 17,000 other environmental scientists that do not believe the IPCC report is valid science. It is political agenda pure and simple.

Al Gore is the pope of the ecomarxist religion. And you people are sheep following him to drink the koolaid.

DO your own research, read reports that true science is basing it's findings on. The fever pitch of the ecomarxist ala Al Gore is hysteria driven by willing accomplishes in the leftist ran media.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

http://www.junkscience.com/

Media Shows Irrational Hysteria on Global Warming

"The Public Has Been Vastly Misinformed," NCPA's Deming Tells Senate Committee

12/6/2006 5:57:00 PM

To: National Desk

Contact: Sean Tuffnell of the National Center for Policy Analysis, 972-308-6481 or sean.tuffnell@ncpa.org

WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma and an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), testified this morning at a special hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The hearing examined climate change and the media. Bellow are excerpts from his prepared remarks.

"In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.

"I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." "The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. ... The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be "gotten rid of."

"In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply vanished. This unique estimate became known as the "hockey stick," because of the shape of the temperature graph. "Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent.

"There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the issue of global warming. In the past two years, this bias has bloomed into an irrational hysteria. Every natural disaster that occurs is now linked with global warming, no matter how tenuous or impossible the connection. As a result, the public has become vastly misinformed."

---

The NCPA is an internationally known nonprofit, nonpartisan research institute with offices in Dallas and Washington, D. C. that advocates private solutions to public policy problems. NCPA depends on the contributions of individuals, corporations and foundations that share our mission. The NCPA accepts no government grants.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

i became into going to place up the comparable question. Snow in West Texas is unusual to being with, yet two times earlier iciness even starts is astonishing. i might like for the international warming human beings to describe why people who get no snow have become a ton of it now.

Actually, much of what you lay at the feet of those who are skeptical of man made global warming more accurately describes the cult of man made global warming believers.

Certainly agree. You wonder who is actually behind these ranters, how many are there or are they just a well organized small group of people funded by the oil industry and other special interest groups who are only interested in keeping their profits flowing in.

They are just to scared to realize the truth and actually take the problem into their hands. Looks what republicans do... Look at the Iraq war...

I agree that the anti global warming movement is messed up!!

People who are against the idea of man-made global warming are not a sect, the people who believe in global warming are:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYS...

Al Gore calls Global warming "a spiritual issue"

I have never claimed that humans have no impact on the environment, we do. However that impact is limited we could affect localized areas but not the entire world. I have never said Al Gore is evil, he is not, Hitler was evil, Al Gore is just a moron. I have dozens of pieces of scientific evidence supporting my claim. You claim my evidence is not scientific not the other way around, you call any evidence against global warming a right wing conspiracy theory.

For a look at my "nonexistent" evidence read on:

The theory of man-made global warming is false. Anyone who believes otherwise has not investigated the evidence or is purposely remaining ignorant to the legitimate opposition to global warming. I have given up an one and a half hours to watch “An Inconvenient Truth” so I ask you to do the same and watch the movie detailing the opposition.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022...

And another video for those of you short on time: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

Some more general resources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_contro...

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4

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

CO2 is not causing the globe to warm the opposite is true, the warming is increasing the atmospheric CO2. When the world heats it gradually increases the temperature of the oceans which serve as the largest CO2 sink. As the oceans heat up they release CO2 which is stored in them. The information comes from the same data Al Gore uses, the temperature always goes up before the concentration of CO2 goes up.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/nineli...

CO2 makes up only .03% of our atmosphere. Water vapor, another greenhouse gas, makes up 1-4% of our atmosphere, this gas is acknowledged to be the main greenhouse gas. All human activities combined contribute only 6 Gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year. Animals, through respiration, decomposition, etc contribute 150 Gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere. So humans contribute only a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere which is already in very small concentrations in the atmosphere.

http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/science.html This is where my data came from, it is an interesting site, it displays the same graphics as Al Gore in his movie but it tells how low the human contribution is. So Al Gore is using the same data but coming to a different conclusion, who do you want to believe a politician with no scientific training or the NASA CO2 laboratory, a group of scientists who spend their entire careers studying CO2.

We know the greenhouse effect is real it is a necessary effect to keep our planet at a habitable temperature. However if our current warming is due to greenhouse gasses it would cause warming in the troposphere , but the troposphere is actually getting cooler.

http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/ That points to other explanations to our current warming.

So what is causing our current warming, it is the sun.

http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/space_weather/

http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/split/642-2...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060926_solar...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/04080...

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/17jan_solc...

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=900

The fact that only the earth’s surface is warming points to direct heating from the sun rather than heating due to greenhouse gasses. Also other planets in our solar system are warming pointing to a common cause of warming, that common cause being the sun.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_sola...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/07...

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/mg...

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/mg...

The global warming crowd says our glaciers are melting and animals will suffer this is another false claim.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/ar...

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA235.html

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

The global warming crowd also insists our seas are rising due to global warming, however this is not entirely correct. Seas in certain areas are rising, there is no global sea rise. The seas have been rising ever since the last ice age: http://globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Holocene_Se...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Post-Glacial_Se...

These two sources show that sea level increase now has actually leveled off from a very steep rise for the past 20 thousand years. For proof of this look here:

http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/markhotd.h...

A mark left by Sir James Clark Ross, an Antarctic explorer, in 1841 is still visible. Not only that but the mark was placed in 1841 to show how high the sea was, not only is the mark visible it is 30cm above current sea levels. Now it is possible that the mark was placed at high tide and the picture taken at low, but even then the mark would still be above current sea levels. The seas have risen dramatically over the past thousand years not due in any part to us. If you want proof of that take a look at one of the dozens of ancient underwater cities that spot the globe. When these cities were built they were on land now they are deep underwater: http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2004/s110720...

This shows a dramatic increase in sea level during human time but long before the world became industrialized.

The global warming crowd also claims a scientific consensus on the issue, this is wrong in two ways. One, there is no consensus, this is a false claim to make you believe in global warming by suppressing the opposition. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Second, even if there was a consensus it would mean nothing, science is not politics, you don’t vote on theories to determine their legitimacy.

Here’s 21 pages of websites that disagree with global warming.

http://www.climatechangedebate.org/documents/CCD_r...

The thought that the only scientists who disagree with global warming are paid by oil companies is simply a stupid statement with no reality. This is the most illogical argument by people in support of global warming. Aside from being completely false it begs another question: Who pays global warming supporters? The answer is big environmental agencies that make millions off of global warming each year by teaching, publishing books, and selling environmentally clean products.

The IPCC is the main supporter of global warming, their statements are defended blindly by people who don’t want to admit that global warming is not real. People will claim that they took into account natural sources of CO2, they didn’t. Take a look for yourself:

http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/srccs/index.htm. That is the latest IPCC report, read the entire report, do a search of the documents, there is absolutely no mention of natural sources of CO2. The natural sources have been completely ignored. Also people will claim that the IPCC took the sun into account in their report, this is not entirely correct, while the sun is mentioned the report it’s effects have not been accurately represented.

http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm. The IPCC did not take into account the Svensmark factor. This would greatly reduce the effect of solar radiation on the earth. Look back up to the solar resources to see the effect of the sun correctly represented.

Also allegations have been by IPCC scientists who disagreed with the IPCC statements. They say that their research was censored or taken out of the IPCC report. This is not the first time the IPCC has lied, they forged the famous “hockey stick” graph, which later resulted in a reissuing of the IPCC report.

Here’s another source that disagrees with the IPCC: http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Sept1004GlobalWarming...

And another: http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/ipccreview.htm

And another: http://www.john-daly.com/guests/un_ipcc.htm

Quotes form politicians, CEO’s, and others are not proof of global warming, they issue these statements to get votes and customers. Scientists are able to get published and get time on the media by supporting global warming. The IPCC continually lies and misrepresents data so they keep their jobs.

In regards to the precautionary principle that says we can only help if we switch over to alternative energy, this idea is not correct. While this may seem legitimate it only helps the first world, third world countries can not afford to switch to the more expensive energy options. Also the US currently spends 4 billion dollars a year on global warming research which could be better spent on research for disease or to fight poverty. For an excellent example of how the precautionary principle is harmful you do not need to look further than DDT. This pesticide was cheap and incredibly effective but it was banned because of it harmful effects on egg shells. Now thousands of people die every year in third world countries because of malaria, a disease that could be easily controlled with DDT.

I hope anyone who believes in global warming they will take a look at the resources I provided. These resources should convince you that global warming is not man-made, it is caused by cycles in the earths climate. If you are not convinced I hope you at least take a new look at global warming as an unproven idea. Remember that global warming is big business for anyone who aligns themselves with it.

I could not go this entire post without mentioning global cooling.

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

http://www.michaelkubacki.com/cooling.htm

In the 1970’s it was claimed that there was a consensus on the fact that the world was headed into an ice age. We have seen once before how damaging a false claim about our climate change can be to our world. Most of the global warming crowd does not want you to know about this scare because it is so similar to the scare today. Government panels were formed and claimed the world was headed to an ice age, evidence poured in supporting the claim, a consensus was claimed, then the whole issue just faded away. That is what will happen with the false scare of global warming.