Again Scientists Claim Global Warming Not Caused by Humans
by Marilyn Mackenzie
The first time I read that humans were not the cause of global warming was in either an AP or UPI article buried in the back pages of a newspaper where most people never venture. To the newspaper, it wasn't big enough news to give front page space. Had the article affirmed that greenhouse gases were most responsible, I'm sure the article would have been given more and better space in the newspaper.
Today, when I looked through my emails, I discovered one from newswithviews.com that was about the same topic.
The article I got in my inbox was from Dr. Michael S. Coffman Ph. D. The title was, "Scientists Disclaim Role of CO2 in Global Warming." The article talked about the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change held in New York City March 2-4 which was attended by over 500 people.
Says Coffman, "These scientists made it abundantly clear with hard scientific evidence that greenhouse gases are not the main drivers of global warming."
Coffman also shared: "Dr. Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist, and founder and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, provided very convincing evidence that CO2 is not playing a significant role in planetary warming."
Reporters from the New York Times and Washington Post played down the reports presented by these scientists. I wonder where the reporters were from the rest of the country? This was big news, but not anything presented on our local TV stations or in the newspapers that I read.
To read, Dr. Michael S. Coffman, Ph.D.'s article, click here: Scientists Disclaim Role of CO2 in Global Warming.
Any time I receive an email message of this sort, I do try to find out what else has been written about the subject. When I get a strange email that sounds like an urban legend, I check with snopes.com. When I get a message like this one, I just try a Google search to see what pops up.
Here's a link about the conference: 2008 International Conference on Climate Change.
This web site says that the even was devoted to answering questions orverlooked or ignored by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Quoting the site:
We're asking questions such as:
*how reliable are the data used to document the recent warming trend?
*how much of the modern warming is natural, and how much is likely the result of human activities?
*how reliable are the computer models used to forecast future climate conditions? and
*is reducing emissions the best or only response to possible climate change?
Obviously, these are important questions. Yet the IPCC pays little attention to them or hides the large amount of doubt and uncertainty surrounding them.
Are the scientists and economists who ask these questions just a fringe group, outside the scientific mainstream? Not at all. A 2003 survey of 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, conducted by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch at the GKSS Institute of Coastal Research in Germany, found:
*82 percent said global warming is happening, but only
*56 percent said it's mostly the result of human causes, and only
*35 percent said models can accurately predict future climate conditions.
Only 27 percent believed "the current state of scientific knowledge is able to provide reasonable predictions of climate variability on time scales of 100 years."
That's a long ways from "consensus" claimed by IPCC.
I also found this article by Dr. Roy Cordato, who attended the 2008 Interntional Conference on Climate Change:
The Locker Room:International Conference on Climate Change, 2008
Cordato writes:
The conference had over 500 attendees with sessions on climatology, paleo-climatology, economics, and politics, featuring many scientists, economists, political experts, and journalists. There were probably eight keynote speakers but the most memorable was the President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus who grew up under communism and recognizes that the push for radical societal change and expansion of government power being proposed in the name of fighting global warming represents a massive new threat to liberty. Ron Baily summarizes Klaus' talk in a report on the conference for Reason Magazine:
"A point Klaus makes crystal clear in his just published book, Blue Planet in Green Chains - What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom? 'My answer is clear and resolute: 'it is our freedom.' I may also add 'and our prosperity,' declared Klaus.
Another article I found says, "The Weather Channel founder and global warming skeptic advocates suing Al Gore to expose the fraud of global warming."
There's more:
Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called "the fraud of global warming." He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose.
"I have a feeling this is the opening," Coleman said. "If the lawyers will take the case - sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore. That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the witness stand and testified, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming."
Earlier at the conference Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, told an audience that the science will eventually prevail and the "scare" of global warming will go away. He also said the courts were a good avenue to show the science.
To read more from this web site: Weather Channel Founder Blasts Network; Claims It Is 'Telling Us What to Think'
I have to wonder if we're getting the whole story from so-called scientists who are connected with the United Nations global warming reports and studies. I have to wonder why there was not more news coverage of this international conference where so many scientists questioned the validity of global warming studies.
I'm not a scientist. But these participants were scientists and persons supposedly interested in the truth.
Are you? Is our government?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 35
If they win the lawsuit does Al Gore have to give the Nobel Prize back?
www.ronnierayjenkins.com
Where not wearing a lapel pin is worthy of a good old fashioned waterboarding.
Much of what is put forth as science today is actually scientism or pseudo-science. It has become a tool for manipulating social and fiscal policies. Thanks for this little expose on a scare that will be looked back on and laughed at fifty years from now, if not sooner.
-Mark
We only records back to the 1880's.
We can't even predict accurately everyday weather.
Our weather patterns change naturally and not always as we wish them to.
The people forcing the fear upon us have other reasons for wishing for global warming to be real or at least for us to believe it is real. Follow a money trail and it will lead you truly every time.
Just saying something is true doesn't make it true.
More real scientists say that we just don't have the information needed, covering a long enough period of time to really know what is happening.
I can't live in fear and see no reason to do so.
I do believe in recycyling when we can, to stop doing things that dirty air or water, when we learn enough to do it. But I do not believe in preaching fear and crisis and living in that fear.
Just an opinion.
namaste
I am aware, that whenever there is a real danger or a minor one, all the powers that be, try to influence things, so that they, the powers that be, end up with even more power then they previously had.
Yep. Amen to that.
You're right that we shouldn't worry ourselves sick over these things. God is in control. I think as long as we're doing our best to take care of this world He created and asked us to "have good stewardship" over, that's quite enough. The key is, though, are we always being good stewards?
Of course we need to look for alternative fuels. Or rather, we need to allow those who have discovered them - like the guy who fuels his car with garbage! - to go forward with cars that can use these alternative fuels. But that would be bad for oil business and the big guys certainly don't want that.
Here's some quotes on what it might take to reach the "goals" of the global warming crowd.
From the two professors at Monash University.
In a paper ("Mitigating greenhouse: Limited time, limited options")
Our calculations show that not even the best combination of fuel efficiency, hybrid and electric cars, alternative fuels and car pooling could provide the reductions needed to meet the 2050 targets for avoiding dangerous climatic change.
The car is doomed. Ultimately, we are going to have to move to a decentralized society where most people need to travel far less. People are going to have to fundamentally change the way they think about travel and make much more use of non-motorized travel such as cycling and walking.
—Associate Professor Damon Honnery
Dr Moriarty said big reductions in air travel were also needed. "An overseas trip might become a once in a life time experience rather than an annual event," he said.
http://www.monash.edu.au/news/feb08-car-doomed.html
I know that there are those who say that we "just" need to find alternatives and I agree but where I disagree is that these alternatives should be self sustaining and require no subsidies for the government. I mean lets think about it logically for a moment. If say ethanol was the wonder fuel of the future should it nod be able to pay for it self? Yea maybe a SBL to get the ball rolling but it shouldn't have to be forced onto the market if it was as good a product as they say it is. Right? I mean look at how many new products come to the market and are truly a new and good product they are selling on their own power and do not need to be subsidized by the government. Why is it that mass transportation and alternative energy need government subsidies to make them what? Viable? Competitive? Why is that?
I wish I could get a subside from the government for my business. I had to put up my own collateral had to take out loans (and pay them back). I started small and slowly grew my business up.
Great article Marilyn. 10
It's always good to check out people who make these statements. This doctor believes the environmental movement to be a plot to push one world government and turn from God to earth worship. I really don't understand religionists who feel it's ok for humans to destroy God's earth because .... why? I don't get it.
Didn't God give Adam stewardship over all animals plants fish fowl birds etc and stewardship has been explained by Jesus Christ in his parables. We are charged with protecting the earth not destroying it with polution, over crowding, careless use and waste dumping.
I think the group in NY is more phony "science" rather than real scientists with years of experience. I see no reason for religion and science to be at odds when thoughtfully compared.
Yep...the vast majority of green house gasses are generated by the earth itself....over 99%. The biggest culprit as far as global warming is concerned is water vapor. It's a green house gas too. I'm copying from the above linked website:
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
I don't want to trivialize the effort to decrease our environment impact and we should honor our planet and do all in our power to protect and keep the Earth clean and green, but as we rush to save the planet from global warming, let's make sure we have our facts correct. I'm copying again:
Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.
I'm not debating weather or not the polar ice cap is melting...it is melting. Is this a result of man's activities or is it a natural progression of the planet changes that have been taking place for the millions of years our little Earth has existed? Why would we assume that climate changes and movements would suddenly halt for us...now? Think about it.
Yep...the vast majority of green house gasses are generated by the earth itself....over 99%.
48,200 scientists have signed a petition stating that global warming is NOT man made.
Ck out the link. It has cool graphs ;)
Just a side note: methane is 20x's more potent than CO2 regarding greenhouse gases.
Lets get Gas-X for all the cattle and insects to help out... I will spearhead this project and will require 2 trillion dollars. Who wants to be Vice President?? Do i hear any takers for CFO? OHHH we can get a cool jet too!
hehehe,
~M