The debate is over on global warming and all scientists agree? Read the new Senate report.?

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 Senate Report Debunks "Consensus" Complete U.S. Senate Report Now Available: (LINK) Complete Report without Introduction: (LINK) INTRODUCTION: Over 400 prominent scientists from more... show more U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Complete U.S. Senate Report Now Available: (LINK)
Complete Report without Introduction: (LINK)

INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.


The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.



Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)


This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.


Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.



“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]



Scientists from Around the World Dissent



This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK)



Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”


This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about half a dozen” skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.” (LINK) & (LINK)


The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.



Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; University of Columbia; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.


The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.”
Update: Here is the full report

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...
Update 2: To dana Master of Science..........if you checked the report youwould have noticed a big difference between the reports writers and Al Gores scientists. Namely in this report are 4 winners of the Nobel prize for science for their work in climatology. Al gor has a total of none but he hopes to double that total... show more To dana Master of Science..........if you checked the report youwould have noticed a big difference between the reports writers and Al Gores scientists. Namely in this report are 4 winners of the Nobel prize for science for their work in climatology. Al gor has a total of none but he hopes to double that total within a year.LOLOLOLOL
Update 3: To Cheerful Charles.....As usual you can lead the liberal to facts but you can't make him think. The disclaimer says that the scientists have different levels of disbelief. Not that some do and some don't. Why are there no climatologists on your side? And can you explain global warming on mars? Maybe out... show more To Cheerful Charles.....As usual you can lead the liberal to facts but you can't make him think. The disclaimer says that the scientists have different levels of disbelief. Not that some do and some don't. Why are there no climatologists on your side? And can you explain global warming on mars? Maybe out little robot landrover is causing it? But keep writing I need the laughs.
Update 4: To Richard O.....Laughter is good.......unless it happens at the liberal think tank the Heritage Foundation. In an effort to prove global warming and to enlist climatologists to their cause they screened "An Inconvenient Truth to I believe it was 40 some climatologists. The screening lasted 22 minutes. The... show more To Richard O.....Laughter is good.......unless it happens at the liberal think tank the Heritage Foundation. In an effort to prove global warming and to enlist climatologists to their cause they screened "An Inconvenient Truth to I believe it was 40 some climatologists. The screening lasted 22 minutes. The climatologists were laughing so hard they were rolling in the aisles so the foundation shut down the screening in embarassment. Laugh on that a while...........I know I did.
Update 5: Hey Bob...I'll excuse your ignorance since you are lib but the Heritage Foundation is a DEMOCRATIC think tank. Of course you would know that if you really were as informed as you would like people to think.
Update 6: Read Bob's answer. He lies in it. He says the National Academy of Science confirms manmade Global Warming. Here is the actual quote from the NAS The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2001 that, "Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and... show more Read Bob's answer. He lies in it. He says the National Academy of Science confirms manmade Global Warming. Here is the actual quote from the NAS
The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2001 that, "Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents…a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established." It also noted that 20 years’ worth of data is not long enough to estimate long-term trends
Again the opposition uses lies to try to prove their point
Update 7: In answer to Keith P and all doomsdayers. It is not enough to site the report you must also READ it. When it came time to lay blame it's all possibly maybe and some people think. They also pointed out that evaporation alone is responsible for 2/3 of the greenhouse effect. And as the heating of the pole and... show more In answer to Keith P and all doomsdayers. It is not enough to site the report you must also READ it. When it came time to lay blame it's all possibly maybe and some people think. They also pointed out that evaporation alone is responsible for 2/3 of the greenhouse effect. And as the heating of the pole and melting ice they show a chart showing the last 350,000 years and there is a 20 degree bounce that occurs every 100,000 years and we are at that point now. So basically the report on the polar caps says that it's normal and happens every 100,00 years. I stopped at that point because it became obvious that (A) you didn't read it or (B) you made up your own "facts"
13 answers 13