Global Warming – a Myth?

More than 650 scientists are bucking the entrenched idea that global warming is real. Much less being caused by human activity. Yet major policy decisions are being made by world governments based on this unsubstantiated idea. This is a critical mistake that cannot be understated. At the link, click on the article “UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”. The UN (and Al Gore) is going with the views of 52 scientists – and ignoring the (currently more than) 650 who dissent.

In particular, CO2 emissions have little or no impact! The Earth has been cooling since 1998!

From the Inhofe EPW Press Blog: Some of the comments by scientists:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.   

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.  

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.  

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.  

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.”– Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # #


This entry was posted in Politics, Science. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Global Warming – a Myth?

  1. gfish says:

    Hmm… I’m wondering about something.

    How come there are no climatologists here, only three people somehow related to meteorology and the vast majority are physicists, geologists and even paleontologists? Why is the opinion of people who have no qualifications in a science being used as proof of anything? You don’t ask a plumber to fix your electrical wiring so why ask a paleontologist about the climate?

  2. popgun says:

    Hi, gfish;
    Interesting point. I’m speculating here, but there are probably multiple reasons. For one thing, these people’s funding isn’t influenced by their opinion, as some of the comments make clear. Second, the global warming bunch have made certain predictions that haven’t happened – such as sea level rising. Which might be noticed by somebody other than a climatologist. Paleontologists have an active interest in long-term climate research as well. So these are knowledgeable people about climate, even though maybe that isn’t their primary field.

  3. gfish says:

    Actually climatologists would get funding regardless of global warming. The paleontologist who wants to figure out what the climate looked like millions of years ago has to turn to climatologist and his statistical models for any temperature ranges because all they can deduce by fossils is whether conditions were tropical, desert or the area used to be a sea or river. It’s then up to the climatologist to examine other things like sediments and patinas to figure out what the area actually looked like during the time the paleontologist is studying.

    As for predictions of sea level rise, sea levels are supposed to rise by 2100 AD and really get underway when the arctic ice is reduces by some 20% or so around 2035 AD. So we’re about 26 years too early to see sea levels rise. Doesn’t mean that the prediction is accurate or it will come true, but when we’re saying that something didn’t happen a quarter century before ti was supposed to, it’s a little unfair… And even then, it’s supposed to rise by about an inch or two a year, accelerating when arctic melting reaches another critical point. Melting glaciers is very different than melting a block of ice from your fridge.

  4. popgun says:

    Hi, gfish;

    The second scientist quoted above (Dr. Joanne Simpson) makes it clear that funding issues do affect what views a given scientist finds it wise to express. There are many more similar testimonies elsewhere to back that up.

    I could debate with you about your view that climatologists are the only ones with an opinion that matters, as well. But we’re getting off point here.

    I have no interest in trying to prove to you that global warming isn’t happening, or vice versa. I’m not qualified to carry that debate, although I have my views based on certain facts I’ve come across in my reading.

    It is my opinion based on the linked article and many others I have read that man-made global warming has not been proven to any such extent that it should be a major factor in government policy decisions at this time. This is the point I’m making here.

    Maybe global warming is happening; maybe it isn’t. If it is, maybe mankind is causing it; maybe not. Given the level of uncertainty, it’s nuts to base government policy on it.

    Your mileage may vary. But that’s the way I see it.


  5. gfish says:

    Well wait, what kind of funding are we talking about? Project funding? University funding? National grants? There are different types of funding for different things and to different ends. A climatologist working on a global warming project that was funded by a government or a private coalition could just as easily get another grant or project and work on something else.

    Dr. Simpson never said that funding issues affected anything. She simply said that since she’s not being funded by anyone, it supposedly makes her opinion on the matter more objective that those who disagree. Sound a bit like poisoning the well to me…

  6. Popgun says:

    Hi, gfish;

    I didn’t take Dr. Simpson’s statement to imply that she was more objective; I took it to mean that she was free to speak her mind without fear of economic reprisal.

    I briefly looked over your blog at Very well done, I’ll spend some time there when I get a chance. It seems that you try to get to the truth of things, and that is what I am after as well. So, have you reached a reasoned conclusion on the subject of global warming? I’d be interested in your opinion, although I don’t particularly want to get into a debate about it; that could take more energy and time than I have to devote to it right now.

    So, what do you think?


  7. gfish says:

    Thank you for your review of my blog.

    Honestly, I’ve written very little about global warming, tackling only the outlandish denialisms like global warming being due to solar flares or our planet headed into an Ice Age. As far as global warming goes, it seems like we do have an effect on the climate by knocking the carbon exchange cycle out of balance, but how much and what we should do about it is something I feel is being too obscured by politics on both sides of the issue. (This is something I mentioned as well.)

    Alternative fuels are always a good idea though. If we can use the sun for all our energy needs though high tech solar panel, we could power our homes dirt cheap. And I would very much like to see more nuclear power, especially fusion.

  8. Popgun says:

    Hi, gfish;

    I am in total agreement with you on all counts. I am in favor of drilling for oil on US soil to relieve the payouts to other countries that we are now paying; but I think this needs to be done as one part of a strategy that includes moving our primary technologies (industrial and auto) over to clean nuclear or solar, and maybe wind and geothermal. In other words, we need to move to alternate energy, but we need the oil now to avoid an even worse financial catastrophe than we now face. I’m not all that in favor of biofuels at least with existing technology, because it consumes too much of our food supply.


  9. gfish says:

    Biofuels are a dead end. They’re only 70% as efficient as gasoline, they’re usually much more corrosive (which means that we’d have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to create a new infrastructure for their delivery) and we already have electrical cars that don’t require us to burn our food and dole out huge subsidies to mega-farms in the works. They’re a feel good PR project for politicians and giant agriculture companies working with oil titans like BP and Shell.

Comments are closed.