Global Warming

[Cap-Z-ro]

For some strange reason the information provided at the opening of the thread showing the fluctuations down through the centuries keeps falling off the discussion table.

Nevertheless, off we go...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4mljwchq5E&feature=player_embedded


Regards...

[PaulLowrance]

I found it!!  Awsome!

Here is a fantastic short talk by Dr. Noah Robinson that was given in 2007. It gives a clear and through analysis of the Global Warming Claims and the actual data as it correlates with solar activity, temperature rise, atmospheric CO₂ levels, hurricane frequencies, Antarctic ice core records, sea water levels, plant growth rates, and human energy usage. 

http://www.discovery.org/v/30

Linked to this is a peer-reviewed paper that was written by Dr. Aurther Robinson that gives an excellent analysis of all these trends. It is also linked to a petition that he asks scientists to sign to show their solidarity against the lie of global warming. Tens of thousands of scientists have signed so far:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

After seeing this short talk and reading through the paper it was clear to me that global warming is a lie. It's only purpose is the control of our lives. This debate is not over. It has only begun, and we will continue to fight the lies at every turn. As our numbers grow the other side will become desperate and try to speed legislation through before the general public becomes fully aware of the lies. They do this by spreading FEAR!

Watch the presentation, read the paper, then join us and sign the Petition. It is the only way we will save our country, and world from this planned tyranny.

I can't imagine why you would say that. Noah E. Robinson is on the faculty of OISM, which circulated the Oregon Petition, a petition" against global warming. OISM is headed by Dr. Arthur B. Robinson who lectures on global warming skepticism at the Heartland Institute, a conservative/libertarian free-market think tank that often funds global warming-skeptical research and is funded in part by ExxonMobil, a petroleum company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

It goes on the say, "31,000 American scientists opposed, on scientific grounds, to the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming"  Key word is "Human-caused."  This is not about if global warming is real. The data is overwhelming that global warming is real. The temperatures are increasing. This is about what's causing it.

It's getting interesting in here folks. Big oil.


Paul

[PaulLowrance]

I would suggest objective people read what this anti global warming petition is,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Petition_Project

Pretty sad how far on a limb these anti global warming people will go.

Paul

[PaulLowrance]

A lot of people at this forum are telling out right lies. The following WikiPedia page is shocking, and yes, this wikipedia page has references up the yin yang.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus

Starts right off with, "The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. Environmental organizations, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media agree on this virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming, although there is less agreement on the specific consequences of this warming."


Here are some of the references for only the above statement,

^ "Global Warning ". Washington Post. 5 February 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020400953.html . Retrieved 2007-04-12.
^ Barker, Scott (October 25, 2003). "Scientists agree on climatic change, differ on severity ". Knoxville News Sentinel. http://www.csm.ornl.gov/PR/NS-10-25-03.html . Retrieved 2007-04-12.
^ "A guide to facts and fictions about climate change ". Royal Society. March 2005. http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630 . Retrieved 2007-11-18.  ""However, the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points""
^ "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change ". Science Magazine. December 2004. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 . Retrieved 2008-01-04.

[PaulLowrance]

Wow, the more I dive into this, the more "oil" pops into the picture. I'll never buy gas from Exxon again. Here are a few quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial


Quotes, the numbers in [] are the wikipedia references,


"A survey carried out by the Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society said "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".[30]"


"Cooney reportedly removed an entire section on climate in one report, whereupon an oil lobbyist sent him a fax saying "You are doing a great job."[5]"


"Some denials and disinformation campaigns have been promoted by individuals or groups that are funded by special interest groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change^[1], particularly those with ties to companies like ExxonMobil or the energy lobby.^[2][3][4] "


"Then-Vice President Dick Cheney's connections to the Energy Lobby, and to ExxonMobil in particular, have fueled speculation that his characterization of climate change science is linked to the "denial industry."^[37] In 2000, Cheney’s Energy Task Force, officially known as the National Energy Policy Development Group, invited the executives of various major oil companies, including Exxon, Conoco, BP, and Royal Dutch Shell, to consult with the White House regarding the development of a national energy policy, although this was initially denied by the participating companies.^[38] An Exxon lobbyist - among others - was thanked by the U.S. Undersecretary of Global Affairs for Exxon's role in convincing President Bush to reject the Kyoto accords. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists:  In her talking points for a 2001 meeting with a group that included ExxonMobil lobbyist Randy Randol (uncove#ff9999 through a Freedom of Information Act request), U.S. Undersecretary for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky thanked the group for their input on global warming policy, noting, ‘POTUS [the president of the United States] rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you.�Global Climate Coalition, according to a leaked 1991 "strategy memo," set out not to gather data and test explanations, but to influence public perception of climate change science and "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact."^[14] The strategy was criticized as misrepresenting science in a 2006 Royal Society letter to ExxonMobil expressing disappointment that a recent industry publication "leaves readers with such an inaccurate and misleading impression of the evidence on the causes of climate change ... documented in the scientific literature."[15]"


"The United Kingdom identified the issue of climate change denial as a major topic on its agenda while chair of the G8 group of wealthy countries in 2005.<sup>[11]"


"</sup>Several think tanks funded by Exxon or, later, ExxonMobil, to contest climate change have also reputedly received funding from Philip Morris such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the Reason Foundation, George Mason University's Law and Economics Center, and the Independent Institute.<sup>[27]"


"</sup>Cooney announced his resignation two days after the story of his tampering with scientific reports broke.^[34] A few days later it was announced that Cooney would take up a position with ExxonMobil.<sup>[35]"


"</sup>The British Royal Society conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US$ 2.9 million to American groups that "misinformed the public about climate change," 39 of which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".^[3][42] In 2006, the British Royal Society issued a demand that ExxonMobil withdraw funding for climate change denial. The letter, which was leaked to the media, drew criticism, notably from Timothy Ball and others, who argued the society attempted to "politicize the private funding of science and to censor scientific debate."^[43]"