Today's Topic: Experts say Global Warming is already threatening life on Earth

Snow in Arkansas this weekend proves to me there is NO GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!! There is a 40 year weather pattern and we are in the warming cycle. Just twenty years ago, there was an outcry of Global Cooling and in twenty more years the same outcry will re-emerge.

Oh please Jesse, busy again confusing weather and climate. Kelli, if you lived in Alaska, you would already be seeing plenty of evidence for global warming. The permafrost is melting and wildfires are becoming much more common in recent years.
Yes, I understand the report is a wake up call. It would have been even more disturbing but the Saudi and the Chinese delegations watered it down some. Why? Because the only product the Saudis have to sell is oil, and because the product that the Chinese are most interested in right now is you guessed it, oil.

I am willing to do plenty to reduce my carbon footprint, but not on a voluntary basis. We need collective action in the USA, not a show of hands for volunteers to spend all their family income on it while the neighbor continues to drive a Hummer.

I already have an exceedingly small carbon foot print.

The 'possibility' that we are warming the globe is more than just hat talk. The changes we have made to the environment over the past few centuries is too obvious. The loss of trees and other natural environments, the asphalting and concreting of the lands, the pollutions of air, water and soil, the heats from our industries, home fires and automobiles.

Acid Rain (a by product of certain major industries) was discovered in 1852, but it wasn't until the late 1960s that scientists began widely studying and observing the phenomenon and its effects. It weakens forests and vegetation, kills fish and wildlife, and damages the materials our buildings are made of.

Barrens and flooded plains will be our future. I hope you like the taste of switch grass.

do folks think the scientists are lying intentionally, are misunderstanding the data, or something else?

It sickens me to my CORE that The GATHER EDITORIAL TEAM give validity to such an issue that has NO consensus of SCIENTIST or DATA. !!!!!

YOU make NO mention NOTHING of the SOLAR SYSTEMIC WARMING OCCURING on EVERY planet in our Solar Neighborhood.

You make NO mention of the INCREASED SOLAR FLARES and SUN ACTIVITY.

You make NO mention OF THE CARBON CREDITS the AL GORE SELLS FOR PROFIT, BUYS HIS OWN "CARBON CREDITS" THERE BY "NEGATING" HIS OWN CARBON FOOTPRINT.

My little Brother comes home saying we are all going to die when the "EARTH CATCHES ON FIRE!!!" Because of People Like AL GORE who has an financial agenda and Crates the piece of human excrement called "an Inconvenient Truth" and PEOPLE THINK ITS FACT!!!.

WHY you ask....BECAUSE THE LIBERAL MEIDA ENDORSES IT, PROMOTES IT.
WHEN did Jounalism become personal opinion instead of Facts and Just the Facts.

The PUBLIC IS BRAINWASHED BY THE Liberal MEIDA' agenda. Public OPINION is WORTHLESS!!

I say we Incease our industry, teardown all the regulations on Gas refineries and Nuke plants that minimized the time a plant can be built to 20 YEARS !!!!!! It only take 4 everywhere else on the entire GLOBE!!!.
And just start building, and building and building.


This Isn't directed to anyone in the comment forum but to the SNIDE and AGENDA DRIVEN (im gonna take a shot in the dark here) LIBERAL DEMOCRATES WHO RUN GATHER.



Andrew you are no Nazi. I do side with Bush but THIS topic is SICK.

Do the scientists think it would be better if we were in an ice age? Oh yeah, the theory now is that every weather pattern, storm, high temperature, low temperature, blizzard, tornado, hurricane, is all because of man made global warming. These kooks have relegated themselves to the scientists/ufologists who think every light they see in the sky is a UFO.

Our day should bring on new technology that reduces the use of oil, bottom line. Burning oil does nothing to help the environment, bottom line.

We could be in a weather pattern that is natural, but why give more money to the rich who probably only keep it for themselves? All I see is the happy neighbors of the rich who get money from them, who want to continue getting money regardless of the effects burning oil has. The only support in destroying the environment? Money. If the nation has no other means of financial support, they need to move.

To argue against this is stupid, lazy, or greedy. Of course, I do see some people to be provokeful. And what good is rhetoric? Agree on two things: change and now.

The evidence of global warming is outstanding. What really annoys me is people who think of Global Warming to be a type of religion, i.e. something you can "believe" in. Let me ask you this: can you believe in Africa? Is Africa something that may not be there, but it's just an excuse? No. The Hockey Stick model is very real, and as a matter of fact, the earth's temperature is gradually heating up. The real question is, as Kelli stated, whether we will see any significant changes in our lifetime.

I don't deny Global warming is happening but it's not our fault.

Imagine a day when our license to drive is suspended. No jobs, and some oil conglomerates sitting on their money.

Mitch, Chinese Government Intervention, Saudi Government intervention.

I'll even say that maybe, the planet is warming. How much of it is caused by man? What does it take to reverse the trend? Can mankind help speed the growth of algae blooms? Algae does a better job of sucking the CO2 from the air, I'm pretty sure.

If, as Mike projects, the hockey stick is an accurate climactic model, then we should be able to determine the damage caused by the increasing CO2 consumptionin about 10 years.

Today the present scientists that are promoting the "Global Warming" Myth, are doing so by ignoring realivent data.
The model that Mike speaks of was not set with the effects of solar radiation, nor the ocean's effects, and natural cycles, which with todays programs cannot handle this. Now if they could alter these programs to take in this data, what would they find? I don't know, but I doubt the Global warming myth would last much longer.
Yes programs we have now can handle local areas, and even countries, but they cannot handle the total global effects, and this is where the problems lie.
Artic Ice meltin, while Anartic ice is growing, is explaned by cycles that have been observed as far back as the 1930's. Ice cores show different facts than the Global warming proponents suggest, namely CO2 follows warming trends, and not precceds them. Methane has cycles of rise as well even higher than today.
When you list all the factors, the theory of global warming can be taken apart, but not put back together without modifying it, which is why I have a hard time believing it. When you look at the counter side, then you can take that apart, and it goes nicely back together without any modifications.
In other words the points for global warming are weak at best, and a fallacy more likely.

The US Supreme Court has already spoken regarding the EPA and CO2 emissions. The Bush Administration seems to be playing at the "we won't until they (China) do game" despite the fact that we have contributed among the largest portions of heat-trapping gasses into the atmosphere to date. Europe seems to have made the choice to take action. The statement that we have contributed such a large amount of the greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is not a matter of blame or reason for guilt. It is merely a fact. It is a matter of responsibility though. Guilt or blame are appropriate should we not choose to act responsibly.

I am a parent of two. If I found out that my kids were playing baseball out in a field next to someone's house, and they had broken a window at that house. I would feel responsible for the repair and cost of that window at that house. If the kids went back to the same field and continued to break windows every day... I would, as a parent, feel responsible to tell the kids to find another place to play ball, it just wasn't working out there.... the cost is too High. I don't care how many other parents let their kids play at that field, breaking windows, I will not let mine play there. There are other ways... If nothing else, we are resourceful, not lazy and lacking in imagination...

Where is our accountablitiy?
That said, I do not expect action from this current administration, to whom accountability means nothing...

Businesses, states, and congress are taking their own initiative...

Texas power industries have scraped plans for umpteen coal-fire power plants and (TXU Power Company) have recently been charged in court with hiking energy prices, not passing savings on to customers. They have oversold the desperatly urgent need for more power supply while doing little to nothing by way of alternate planing/investigating efficiency and alternatives... The company (TXU) is being taken over by parties more interested and dedicated to taking a wiser approach to powerplants...

Here in northeast Ohio, we have set the record for the most snow ever. Where is this Global Warming Trend? I could use some heat about now.

Andrew-
I will not call you a nazi. It's a free country. You may be ignorant or you may be ill informed, but I am sure you are a nice guy and have no need to lock you up.
By the way you will notice if you read the IPCC report that the scientists do not actually politicize this topic at all. They are merely writing reports that state it is a problem- no proposals for dealing with it, that is not their job. That part- the hard part- is up to us, the voters.
By they way did you notice that John mcCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger are leaders in the effort to take action against global warming? They are Republicans by the way. And if you give global warming another ten years you will change your tune.

Did you all know most of the people listed on that report wee misquoted, and a few even left and refesed to comment at the meeting, even though their names were left on the report as suppoting it. No the report has been faked by the IPCC and severly misquoted intentionally.
So the report is bogus.

Is that why five People that worked on it sued the IPCC to have their names removed?
No it is not watered down, it is false, manipulated, and mis-stated.

It's shorthand, Dan. If you want more read more somewhere else. I will be reading the details on everything the IPCC does this year because they represent mainstream science on this topic. I will probably read their reports so that they are not filtered through somebody else. Some consider the mainstream media environental alarmists, but frankly I find too much "on the other hand it will probably all be fine" statements in in environment bits in newspapers and magazines.

yes Mitch, I agree it is watered down. The Chinese and Saudi delegations were the holdouts, working real hard to take out the word"Highly" or "almost certainly" whenever they saw it. Why? Because the one wants to sell oil and the other wants to buy it. Sheer greed and self interest.

Dan: "Did you all know most of the people listed on that report wee misquoted, and a few even left and refesed to comment at the meeting, even though their names were left on the report as suppoting it. No the report has been faked by the IPCC and severly misquoted intentionally.
So the report is bogus."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17953433/

I quote:

Agreement came after an all-night session during which key sections were deleted from the draft and scientists angrily confronted government negotiators who they feared were watering down their findings.

"It has been a complex exercise," said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Several scientists objected to the editing of the final draft by government negotiators but in the end agreed to compromises. However, some scientists vowed never to take part in the process again.

There was little doubt about the science, which was based on 29,000 sets of data, much of it collected in the last five years. "For the first time we are not just arm-waving with models," Martin Perry, who conducted the grueling negotiations, told reporters.

The United States, China and Saudi Arabia raised the many of the objections to the phrasing, often seeking to tone down the certainty of some of the more dire projections.

Ed. Board: "...what do you think should happen next? How long do you think it will be before we see changes in national and international policy concerning Global Warming? Do you think the conclusions reached at the conference were based on scientific data, public opinion, or both? What changes are you willing to make in your daily life to lessen your carbon footprint?"

I think there should be a carbon tax, possibly with some form of carbon trading scheme. I think revenue raised from a carbon tax should go exclusively toward the development of infrastructure to support sustainables, particularly a solar-hydrogen loop, developed by ECD Ovonics. There are many promising sustainable technologies already in existence. The issue is developing the infrastructure.

I am hoping that policy changes will take place within this newly elected congress. Maybe Bush will sign such legislation as the Sanders/Boxer bill (S.309):

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976930655

If Bush doesn't sign this (or similar) legislation, his successor surely will.

Conclusions at the IPCC conference were based on science, but were "watered down" by government negotiators from the U.S., China, and Saudi Arabia, as noted in the above article I linked. Public opinion is strong, but it did not affect the IPCC Report.

I have already made substantial changes in my personal life. My icon is the hybrid I drive. It is a 2001 Honda Insight. It gets 62.2mpg.

I changed light bulbs in my home from incandescent to CFCs years ago.

I bought all new "energy star" appliances.

I buy renewable energy from Sterling Planet. It's $30/month over and above my utility bill:
http://www.sterlingplanet.com/

I recycle.

I write Sens. Lott and Cochran, and Rep. Wicker regularly. I'm sure they're sick of hearing from me.

I didn't have children.

Steve B., your mistake is your source. I would never use such an unreliable source.

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

April 15, 2006

An open letter to Canadian 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 Chrétien, 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, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Department 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, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa.
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Department 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, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario.
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. Andreas Prokocon, 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, 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.
Dr. Peter Chylek, adjunct professor, Department 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, Virginia, and Sioux Lookout, Ontario.
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, Ontario.
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, New Jersey.
Mr. George Taylor, Department 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 Mörner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics and geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California.
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, Minnesota.
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, Department of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy and 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, Department 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. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden.
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California; atmospheric consultant.
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.
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Dan,
What does your information have anything to do with the Meeting in Brussels and thier report? I thought your contention was that a number walked out and wanted their names removed from the report? What does this "letter" have to do with that?

Dan. Typical evasion - attack the messanger.

David. Good luck getting an answer to your queston.

Dan. Maybe you prefer Fox News. The message is the same.

In the past, scientists at these meetings felt that their warnings were conveyed, albeit slightly edited down. But several of them left Friday with the sense that they had lost control of their document. At one point, NASA's Cynthia Rosenzweig filed a formal protest and left the building, only to return, make peace and talk in positive tones. Others talked about abandoning the process altogether.

"There was no split in the science _ they were all mad," said John Coequyt, who observed the closed-door negotiations for the environmental group Greenpeace.

But Yvo de Boer, a diplomat who is the top climate official for the United Nations, countered that it was a "difficult choice." If it stayed the way scientists originally wrote it, some countries would not accept nor be bound by the science in the document. By changing the wording, "in exchange the countries are bound to this," de Boer said.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Apr07/0,4670,ClimateReport,00.html

CNN reported the same:

Agreement came after an all-night session during which key sections were deleted from the draft and scientists angrily confronted government negotiators who they feared were watering down their findings.

"It has been a complex exercise," said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Several scientists objected to the editing of the final draft by government negotiators but, in the end, agreed to compromises. However, some scientists vowed never to take part in the process again.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/06/climate.report.ap/index.html

Regarding the list provided above...

the number of scientists listed being 60, represents 3% of the rounded number of 2000, being those specialists involved with the IPCC work. That does not include those specialists not involved with IPCC work but supporting the current concensus view.

Of those above, how many have performed original research work, supporting their views? How much of it has been Peer Reviewed? How much has been published in Peer Reviewed Journals? (remembering that it is methodolgy and accuracy that is reviewed as acceptable or not; and it is not personal views or bias toward expected or undesired results that rejects a submittal). How many of those have withstood further scrutiny? How many have reviewed other studies and have published evidence refuting the consesus understanding? How many have performed and published studies that appropriately accounts for the behavior of Anthropogenic (human-produced) Carbon in the atmosphere?
What is the actual body of researched and reviewed evidence that supports the counter-concensus understanding of the current climate change event?

Regarding the "letter" itself...
Its wording seems wholey inappropriate and out of character for those involved in Academia as indicated by the descriptions in the signing list.

As of January 2007, the leading parties in Canada have been calling for and proposing stronger action on climate change.

I would not be surprised if the letter itself were a fabrication. The points raised in the letter do not bear out in relation to the state of study and understanding of the current climate change event. I would expect that the specialists involved in "signing" the "letter" would have a clear understanding at least of what the concensus view has presented thus far.

To state as the letter does that " 'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase..." points to a lack of understanding that of the current climate change event that any climate scientist would not have any grasping (even those not supporting the concensus view). Any climate scientist, for or against the concensus view, would understand the difference between the process of climate change and the current Climate Change Event with its specific details of causation being one of the key areas of Focus and Concern.

I would not be surprised to learn that some if not many of those listed on the "letter" did not know their names were being used.

What group organized these individuals and sponsored the writing and sending of the letter? Is there a further information on that group and on the writting and sending of the letter? For instance the Union of Concerned Scientists has a website and lists their signitories on important open letters and public statments. It also describes the organization.

Until more is known about the letter itself, its authors, and the inclusion of its signitories, it stands out as a Curiosity, but not an item that carries any weight, despite the names and qualifications of the signers...

I personally would be interested in reviewing the letter and its postion further if those questions were clarified...

Either way, 3% dissent does not make for a strong case that a concensus does not exist...
Would that really be a solid base to take such a large risk considering the stakes? Would that really make sense looking at it objectively?

That said, there is no solid evidence that there is even a 3% level of dissent among specialists regarding this current climate change event and its causation...

David, I found this link through one of the names of the signers of the IPCC report that opposed the report's standing. This was one of the links from that person's name that Wilkpedia supported, and from what I have seen of that site, they are not too free with accepting things.
With that said, I saw their first letter which was also posted in 1999 by the many of the same people.
And sorry as I have read a number of letter from acidemics, this does not fail to look authentic. The issue they are working for, is not to convince the government to believe anything at this time, but to listen to the opposing side's arguements. Which Canada has failed to do. Another point is this is likely an excerpt from the actual letter just to show the people that there is indeed sound and experienced opposition to this myth of Global Warming.

Steve B., As I have stated many times in comments and in my articles, I do not rely on News media, as both sides push their own agendas. The reason here with this post was that a number of the people here were also listed on the IPCC report as supporting scientists, and that this would be exstremely unlikely with the fact they have been debunking it for some time now.
It is not an evasion as you stated, but evidence that some if not many of them would never have supported a fallacy.

"As I have stated many times in comments and in my articles, I do not rely on News media...."

No, you don't trust anything that disagrees with your idiolotry. Read the IPCC Reports. They are at least as reliable as the 20 or so signers of the statement you post. I've seen that letter before. So what? There are skeptics in science. Science, by its very nature is skeptical. What about the 2000+ other scientists, who do sign on to this report, angered as they are that it was watered down by a political process.

"It is not an evasion as you stated, but evidence that some if not many of them would never have supported a fallacy."

Of course it was an evasion. What you originally posted was a statement that scientists were angered by the IPCC Report, and that that meant the Report was not valid. Here is your statement:

"Did you all know most of the people listed on that report wee misquoted, and a few even left and refesed to comment at the meeting, even though their names were left on the report as suppoting it. No the report has been faked by the IPCC and severly misquoted intentionally.
So the report is bogus."

You had it exactly backwards. The scientists were angry because the report did not state problem strongly enough. Then, instead of walking away from your original claim, you piss on the media and find an old letter from a group of skeptical scientists to a skeptical Canadian PM. Then you say you're not being evasive!

Dan, I am still not convinced of the authenticity or intent of the letter. Until I know more about the actual authors of the letter and the organization that they represent and that the signitories have endorsed, it would be difficult to take it fully seriously. There are skeptics in science, as Steve points out - it is a key element to be skeptical and critical. But the letter is not constructed in a way that follows naturally from an assumed viewpoint of a group of skeptical scientists... It is constructed using key "talking points" used in a public opinion style debate about the issue of climate change... And its being a "Public" "Open" letter indicates that that is a large (if not primary) intent of the letter... Rather than being a sincere attempt at getting a government to "listen to reason" ...

As the letter reads:
"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."
I think that, yourself being familiar with letters from academics, that you would agree in the very least that any climate scientists (for or against the concensus view) would at least recognize the amount of work done by scientists world wide and acknowledge that they have provided results to support their position. However, to say that using the phrase that "climate change is real" is meaningless and repeated by activists discounts that academic respect and acknowledgment of reality that a vast number of specialists (and other scientists) number far more than 2000, both Understand the true application of the phrase "Climate Change is Real" (being able to discern past climate change from this current event) and they believe it is not meaningless, as they also do understand its primary and significant causes.

Are you saying that this goup of skeptical scientists is endorsing the view that their counterparts who have come together on the consensus view are merely "activists" and do not understand that Climate Change has happened naturaly in the past?

Are you saying this group of skeptical scientists is not only skeptical about the report of the concensus view, but that they are skeptical that the science has been done (do activists perform the science and produce the reports) and properly understood by them?

Do they have material that supports those positions?

I would think that an open letter on a serious topic such as this by serious academics trying to be taken seriously by a serious government would be written a little more carefully... Wouldn't you?

I'm sorry but I still can't take the letter seriously myself...

The individuals that left the meeting angry, did so because the felt that the final product was too watered down...