(Gathered by me with the sources at end of list)
1. Rises in CO2 and the activities of man DO NOT cause global warming.
a. More Co2 does NOT lead to warming. The global average rise in temperature is roughly one degree Celsius or less at equilibrium for a doubling of the air's carbon dioxide concentration.That is meager warming for so profound a change in the air's carbon dioxide content. Indeed, it is within the range of climate's natural variability.(1)
b. Any warming from the growth of greenhouse gases is likely to be minor, difficult to detect above the natural fluctuations of the climate, and therefore inconsequential. (2)
c. The last ice age ended approximately 10,000 years ago. This was followed by a period of significant global warming that lasted —5,000 years. The average temperature in this time frame was 2 to 3 degrees Celsius HIGHER THAN WE FIND TODAY. (4)
d. A whole study showing a completely insignificant relationship between C02 and global warming can be found here ( http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm ). This research has numerous graphs of climate and Co2 rates documenting it's findings. It also has temperature and climate graphs showing the fact that NO WARMING has generally occured that can be significantly linked to the "unatural activities" of man. (12)
e. Rises in CO2 FOLLOW rises in temperature. An EXCELLENT presentation by Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, State Geologist and Director of the Kansas Geological Survey showing information gathered by Khilyuk, L.F. and Chilingar, G.V. 2006 shows that spikes in CO2 in the atmosphere FOLLOW rises in the climate temperature, and DO NOT PRECEED it! (14)
Find it Here ---->
2. Global warming if it does exist, is most like the result of natural phenomenon.
a. 98% of the Co2 put into the air is put there by NATURE. (3)
b. In July 2004, the London Telegraph reported on a study by Swiss and German scientists suggesting increased radiation from the SUN – not human activity – was to blame for climate changes. (2)
c. Twentieth century temperature changes show a strong correlation with the sun's changing energy output. (1)
d. The main greenhouse effect is natural and is caused by water vapor and clouds. (1)
e. "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance." (7)
3. Global Warming & GLOBAL COOLING has intemittantly and alternately been predicted repeatedly by the "experts" for over a century. (5) Popular magazines like Time, Newsweek, Fortune and other magazines carried articles in the 1970's that fortold of a coming ice age the result of manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun. (5)
4. Al Gore's home electric bill is 20 times more than the average American household. (6)
Like it or not, it is what it is. Draw your own conclusions.
5. TWO BILLION years of earth's temperature (looks like we're in a very COLD period):
Earth's temperature/climate over the last few THOUSANDS of years:
Last 100 Years of Earth's temperature (not too many trends here):
The temperature has gone DOWN for the last last few decades: (14)
6. Scientists Do/Don't Agree!
a. "The basic agreement frequently described as representing scientific unanimity concerning global warming is entirely consistent with there being virtually no problem at all." and, "Intimidation has mostly, but not exclusively, been used against those questioning alarmism." by none other than Al Gore. (9).
b. One of the most heavily publicized "proof" of scientific consensus in the last decade concerning climate change has been the Oreskes Study [Oreskes, Naomi. “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” Science Vol.306, 3 December 2004 Vol. 1686] as stated by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, when results of a surveys used in these study are looked at IN DETAIL, they suggest just the OPPOSITE. For example, one question on the survey asked “To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes? This question had a mean score of 3.62 (on a scale of 1 to 7 with 1=strongly agree and 7=strongly disagree). THIS is NOT consensus especially when you find out that ONLY 9.4% of the respondents “strongly agree”. with that statement. In other words, 10% is consensus as far as the Oreskes study has been represented.
Detailed results of the (above/Oreskes) study published in Science, Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686 , 3 December 2004 here .
c. The letter about the above results sent to Science Magazine that it refused to publish Here.
d. Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus recently said in The Washington Times, March 10, 2007, that "global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so".
e. During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition which states that "the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge." (12)
f. Opposition is suppressed.
"A final aspect of politicization is the explicit intimidation of scientists. It is essential
to discuss this unsavory subject – albeit briefly and incompletely. Intimidation has mostly,
but not exclusively, been used against those questioning alarmism. Victims of such
intimidation generally remain silent for reasons that will become evident. Thus, prior to
1992, then Senator Gore ran at least two hearings in order to pressure scientists who
questioned his views." (13)
g. "the theory of currently observed global atmospheric warming as a result of increasing anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is a myth," and has "proved to be an enduring one." Khilyuk, L.F. and Chilingar, G.V. 2006. On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved? Environmental Geology 50: 899-910. (14).
1-Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and deputy directory of Mount Wilson Observatory, received her M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in astrophysics from Harvard University.
2- Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html
4. Michael Heberling (firstname.lastname@example.org) is president of the Baker College Center for Graduate Studies in Flint, Michigan. He is also on the Board of Scholars with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan.
5. Newsweek, Time & Fortune Magazines.
7-Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia/NationalGeographic.com http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html
8. Christopher R. Scotese, Univ. of Chicago 1976 - 1983 1985 (Ph.D.), Univ. of Tx. at Arlington Full Professor 2002-present, http://www.scotese.com/ScoteseCV.htm
9. RICHARD S. LINDZEN,
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
10. Bray, D. and Hans von Storch “The Perspectives of Climate Scientists on Global Climate Change, 2003”
Professor Dennis Bray, GKSS Forschungszentrum, Geesthacht, Germanyhttp://w3g.gkss.de/G/mitarbeiter/bray/BrayGKSSsite/BrayGKSS/WedPDFs/Science2.pdf
11. Benny J Peiser, Faculty of Science - Henry Cotton Campus - Liverpool John Moores University - 15-21 Webster Street - Liverpool L3 2ET UNITED KINGDOM - email@example.com - Phone: 0151 231 4338 Fax: 0151 231 4353 http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm
12. Petition Project
PO Box 1925
La Jolla CA 92038-1925 .
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Rd., Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 firstname.lastname@example.org
George C. Marshall Institute, 1730 K St., NW, Ste 905, Washington, DC 20006 email@example.com January 1998
Much More Here ---> http://www.sitewave.net/news/
Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.
Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.
Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.
Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified.
By the way, "The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.
13. RICHARD S. LINDZEN,Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
14. Khilyuk, L.F. and Chilingar, G.V. 2003. Global warming: are we confusing cause and effect? Energy Sources 25: 357-370.