Brandon A asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 1 decade ago

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)


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 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 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 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 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 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 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

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Just goes to show that you can only fool the people for so long.

    I've always believed that the truth will reveal itself if you give it time.

    Just wait. In a little while Bob and Dana and that other goof with the feathered hat will come on here and call all those scientists "skeptics and deniers being paid by Exxon." Just watch and see... they are so funny to listen to. So serious yet so uninformed. Ignorance isn't bliss, it's hilarious.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Ruth
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    This is like so many issues today, so what if my actions might have a negative impact on someone else? It all boils down to the pie concept... there is just 1 pie, the planet. We Americans represent 5% of the people pie, but we serve ourselves 25% of the natural resource pie and then add 28% to the pollution and waste pie... We all talk about our rights, but never consider the rights of others. If there is a cake cut into six pieces for six people, and the first 2 people to arrive at the party each eat half the cake, is that OK? This is so much bigger than this little global warming issue. It is all about consumption! What we consume, how we consume it, why we consume it and what we do with it when we don't want it or need it anymore. We know the right answers, we have solutions... we can change for any of a hundred reasons related to these issues. Most people who post here can not see themselves as they really are, and how others see them. They believe it's all OK, and we should just keep doing what we've been doing, there's no harm.. but there is! Why do we have an immagration problem? Could it be that those outside of this country see that the only way to get their fair share is to come and take it, and dream of becoming Americans too? Why do we have a terrorist problem? Could it be that those that have had their piece of cake eaten by someone else just aren't going to take it any more, and this is the only way they can get our attention? Don't worry, go shopping all you good Americans... buy those toxic toys, because what you can't see, smell, hear or taste won't really hurt you, it's just a theory... right? All those on the opposite sides of every issue truely believe their side is the right side, when in many cases both sides are way off in never never land, which America has become. The world is changing, and we are the ones changing it. We still lead, and many will follow, but where? Unlike in the past, we have a better idea of what our current life styles are doing to the planet. There are many choices that we are free to make today, that will be forced upon us all very soon if we choose poorly, with out options and no more choices left. Who will you blame then, yourself or someone else? We all must meet in the middle and get past this point. We all have valuable input. We have all been created as equals, and should have equal rights and protection under the law. I still believe that, do you? By the way, the source of this article is from one side of the issue, not the middle... more polarized crap! The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Are you aware that the scientist who won a Noble peace prize along with Al Gore refused to accept it because of the false concept that global warming is caused by man? There are scientists from NASA and universities from around the world who say man is not causing global warming.

    Here is my own scientific test. You have probably noticed that at night and early in the morning the temperature drops. As day breaks and the sun shines the temperature goes up. So even with all the people and animals including the cattle farting (scientists have said that is the most source of co2, I am not making that up ) and automobiles on the planet releasing carbon gases, they do not cause the temperature to rise. It is the SUN that is the obvious soursce of heat in our planet and solar system yet we are to believe that it is of no matter in the global warming myth. Have you been told that of all the gases on the planet only 5% are considered greenhouse gases and of that amount less than a tiny fraction of 1% are man- made carbon gases? So if you want to believe that a rather insignificant trivial amount of man-made gases are causing the planet to warm a fraction of a degree rather than the sun, go ahead. However I think it is wise to realize that scientists are just like any other people and some are prone to push ideas that fit their personal philosophy or agenda despite observable facts. There are recorded record temperatures before cars were around and when the human population was very much reduced as well also disproving the global warming belief that it is man-made.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Like the reports which exaggerate claims for AGW, the questioner exaggerates claims against. Note the disclaimer at the beginning of the report: -

    "Disclaimer: The following scientists named in this report have expressed a range of views from skepticism to outright rejection of predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. "

    Please note that this is not therefore a list of people who oppose the AGW theories, some do, but it includes a number who are skeptical. To if we can avoid the hysteria and adopt a reason approach then perhaps we can all learn

    If what the questioner is saying is that there is no scientific concensus then I completely agree. However IMO we should not try and turn this into a personal vote for/against Al Gore.

    No one seems to be opposing the fact that there has been an increase in the temperature over the last few years. Indeed to do so would I think go against both scientific data and anecdotal evidence.

    From the short quotes included in the report it is often difficult to see what is the basis of the objection. So to be fair we need to look at each objection and see how other scientists would respond.

    What is generally opposed is the proposed mechanism which traces the cause back to the level of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Although even here some of the scientists quoted accept it but argue that there is nothing we can do about it.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    1. There are about 100,000 scientists worldwide. After five years of searching, Inhofe has found 400 who are skeptical of global warming. That's 99.6% in favor of the consensus view. You don't often get a majority that big in science, but thanks to Inhofe for proving just how strong the consensus on AGW really is.

    2. The Heritage Foundation isn't a Democratic think tank at all. It's a leading exponent of neoconservative thought.

    3. Believe it or not, there has actually been some new science done since 2001. Here's the most recent NAS opinion from March 2006:

    "Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Bob
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    This is SO bizarre. The ignorance here is astounding.

    "All scientists agree"? There are only this many?

    "4 winners of the Nobel Prize for Climatology?" That award went to a couple of thousand of them, and 1,996 disagree with those 4.

    Scientists laugh at Gore's movie? Hardly. Maybe the right wing nuts at the heritage Foundations, but not "scientists". Proof:

    The consensus is still there.

    There are always a few "skeptics". There are people (and even some scientists) who say the Earth is 6000 years old.

    And this is still true:

    "The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists. I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

    NASA's Gavin Schmidt

    Senator Inhofe is not a credible source.

    EDIT Wow. They just keep coming. "the Heritage Foundation is a DEMOCRATIC think tank"


    "One of the oldest and most influencial conservative think tanks, the Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 by Paul Weyrich to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense"

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Big Oil at work again. A list of 400 pulled out of their fanny--economists, scientists whose field of research has nothing to do with climate science, 75-year-old retired cranks, Big Oil paid shills, and people completely quoted out of context, like that polar bear guy who says polar bears are doing okay. What does that have to do with whether manmade global warming is true or not? Get a clue, don't bend over for Big Oil propaganda.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    I've always loved the term "The debate is over" because it signifies a closed mind - in any and all fields of study, industry, academia, etc.

    Do I personally believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming? No.

    Do I personally believe that regardless of whether or not AGW is real, that people should do what they can to minimize emissions, minimize environmental impact, recycle, reuse, etc.? Yes. Affirmative. That's a big 10-4 good buddy!

    Do I personally believe that people should practice "responsible use" of natural resources? Amen and hallelujah, that's another big "yes".

    So, regardless of whether or not a person believes or disbelieves in Anthropogenic Global Warming, each and every one of us should do what we can to reduce emissions, and reduce our environmental impacts - even if the sky isn't falling.

    Will I get several "thumbs down" for this reply? I'm fairly certain that I will - but that doesn't bother me in the slightest. The fact of the matter is that COMMON SENSE should be the rule of thumb for pretty much all of us.

    Unfortunately, common sense isn't quite so common these days.

    Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa, Feliz Navidad, Happy Hanukkah, Peaceful Winter Solstice, etc. to everyone!

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    No, not all scientists agree. Just the vast majority. From Inhofe's blog:

    "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."

    Many of those fields have little to do with climate science. They might contribute to a climate science paper, but the scientists themselves would not be climate science experts.

    This smells of the Oregon Petition hoax to me. Besides which, 400 scientists is a small number in comparison to the total number of scientists in all those fields. We're talking about less than 1%.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    im not going to quote scientific studies these are my thoughts on global warming. I don't understand why mans ability to damage or destroy the earth is so hard to imagine. I clearly remember learning about in the immediacy of the industrial revolution. forests were dying around areas where factories were densely populating cities without constraints put upon what they were able to spew into the air. also the dust bowls that spread across the North American Midwest were in part due to our miss-understanding that we were planting crops that were not native to the area, and we did not cycle crops to give the land a break, this caused the land to lose the ability to hold minerals needed to support plant life. when a drought came the soil was not heavy enough to withstand the strong winds that would sweep across the plains. these are just a few examples of how man has affected the climate and earth in recent times.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.