New study shows humans have little effect on environment

HANKTHELANK

Consensus Shattered As Major Scientific Study Says Global Warming Is Natural
Attempts to reduce CO2 emissions "pointless" as sun is cited as climate change culprit

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, December 11, 2007


The so-called scientific consensus that global warming is man-made has been shattered with the release of a major new study backed by three universities which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is explained by natural factors and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that temperature fluctuations over the past three decades are not consistent with greenhouse model predictions and more closely correlate with solar activity.

The report dismisses attempts to reverse global warming by reducing carbon emissions as ineffective and pointless.

(Article continues below)

Authored by Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia), the study appears in this month's International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society.

“The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming," said lead author David H. Douglass.

Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”

---

PRISON PLANET.TV CHRISTMAS SPECIAL - IT'S BACK!
Subscribe today for just $39.95 and get the equivalent of 5 months free!

---

Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface and thus the climate. Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless – but very costly."

The findings of the report help to explain why we are witnessing climate change in almost every corner of our solar system, from Mars to Pluto, to Jupiter and to the moons of Neptune - and clearly identify the sun as the main culprit and not CO2 emissions - which are being used as a pretext for control freaks to completely dominate every aspect of our lives.

Man-made global warming advocates have often made their case by claiming that the scientific consensus is fully behind CO2 emissions as the main driver of climate change, when in fact the UN's own IPCC report was disputed by the very scientists that the UN claimed were behind it.

In reality, a significant number of prominent experts dispute the global warming mantra, but many have been intimidated into silence and had their careers threatened simply for stating an opposing view.

HAT TIP: Canadian Free Press

810wmb

wow - not much traffic on this thread - wonder why?

gabers

Interesting find and worth the read. I wonder how much cred it gets from leading climatologists. The thing is, you can get a group of four scientists to agree we all descended from aliens, but that doesn't mean you should believe it. Now if Tom Cruise told me I might...

I don't really understand the obsession with disproving global warming is at least influenced by man. It's really quite a simple theory.

Gorthaur

That they say "control freaks" says to me this is bogus.

And even if we don't have an effect in global warming, it doesnt mean we dont have an effect on the enviroment. The name of this thread, therefore, is illogical.

While there are SOME natural causes for global warming...it still doesnt mean we dont have a lot of blame. Man has proved to be pretty good when it comes to screwing things up, so dont underestimate us. We could even create weapons that can destroy the most of the world! (wait, we already did that)

Oh, and if we dont have anything to do with it...still its no excuse to pollute the world and defend abusive industry.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

I noticed the Prison Planet plug and am wondering if this was featured on infowars.com and it appears it is. Honestly Alex Jones is weirding me out these days. He's right on the money on some things, but some issues lately are right off the deep end.

I think it's pretty obvious just by measuring the air quality and water quality that there is some kind of man made impact going on. How it plays into global warming is an estimate. I'm wondering if the carbon and soot particles were all shooting up into the clouds to make them more reflective (i.e. global cooling) is counter balancing the CO2 insulating effects being introduced. Who is Al Gore consulting with then, because lately he's upped the ante to global crisis mode or emergency mode or something like that.

polaris

alll these authors are well known skeptics who when questioned by other scientists are unable to defend their work ... none of their work has been published in any peer-reviewed journals for a reason and a few of these guys are/have been on exxon's payroll ...

why do we continue to go through this?? ... i can understand a debate on the effects of climate change but if we're gonna continue to recycle the same guys to prove we aren't causing climate change - it's definitely a step backwards ...

does anyone think the world is gonna gather in bali on suspect science?

chopitdown

polaris wrote:

alll these authors are well known skeptics who when questioned by other scientists are unable to defend their work ... none of their work has been published in any peer-reviewed journals for a reason and a few of these guys are/have been on exxon's payroll ...

why do we continue to go through this?? ... i can understand a debate on the effects of climate change but if we're gonna continue to recycle the same guys to prove we aren't causing climate change - it's definitely a step backwards ...

does anyone think the world is gonna gather in bali on suspect science?

avg temp of 82 in december...hell i'd become a global warming advocate for a free trip to Bali
Let's not kid ourselves...some of those scientists saying there is global warming also have something to gain (money by funding and by business relations) by saying it is happening. I still think they should approach this from a conservation standpoint rather than a global warming standpoint.

polaris

chopitdown wrote:

avg temp of 82 in december...hell i'd become a global warming advocate for a free trip to Bali
Let's not kid ourselves...some of those scientists saying there is global warming also have something to gain (money by funding and by business relations) by saying it is happening. I still think they should approach this from a conservation standpoint rather than a global warming standpoint.

yeah ... ok - common counterpoint which only serves to continue to avoid the issue altogether ...

conservation and climate change are intertwined but taking your approach belittles the already costly impact we have already had ...

onelongsong

HANKTHELANK wrote:

Consensus Shattered As Major Scientific Study Says Global Warming Is Natural
Attempts to reduce CO2 emissions "pointless" as sun is cited as climate change culprit

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, December 11, 2007


The so-called scientific consensus that global warming is man-made has been shattered with the release of a major new study backed by three universities which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is explained by natural factors and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that temperature fluctuations over the past three decades are not consistent with greenhouse model predictions and more closely correlate with solar activity.

The report dismisses attempts to reverse global warming by reducing carbon emissions as ineffective and pointless.

(Article continues below)

Authored by Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia), the study appears in this month's International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society.

“The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming," said lead author David H. Douglass.

Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”

---

PRISON PLANET.TV CHRISTMAS SPECIAL - IT'S BACK!
Subscribe today for just $39.95 and get the equivalent of 5 months free!

---

Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface and thus the climate. Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless – but very costly."

The findings of the report help to explain why we are witnessing climate change in almost every corner of our solar system, from Mars to Pluto, to Jupiter and to the moons of Neptune - and clearly identify the sun as the main culprit and not CO2 emissions - which are being used as a pretext for control freaks to completely dominate every aspect of our lives.

Man-made global warming advocates have often made their case by claiming that the scientific consensus is fully behind CO2 emissions as the main driver of climate change, when in fact the UN's own IPCC report was disputed by the very scientists that the UN claimed were behind it.

In reality, a significant number of prominent experts dispute the global warming mantra, but many have been intimidated into silence and had their careers threatened simply for stating an opposing view.

HAT TIP: Canadian Free Press

i've found that if you have no talent; you can become famous by either killing someone famous; killing several people; or dissagreeing with the general consesus. this study is total bullshit. for those inclined to believe it; i have a little experiment; actually 2; that will change your mind. the first is to put a plastic garbage bag over your head. you will breathe in O2 and exhale CO2. if you begin to feel the effects of CO2 poisoning; you can deduct that man himself expells CO2 and therefore adds to the CO2 in the atmosphere. the next experiment is simple too. close your vehicle and yourself in a garage. run the engine for 10 minutes. when the ShO2 begins to change to sulfuric acid in your lungs; you can clearly deduct that combustion engines emitt ShO2 into the atmosphere. thus adding to the greenhouse gasses.

from a more scientific point of view; we can clearly see that the earth is following the trend of past extinctions which were caused by global warming. we can identify the causes of global warming in each of those instances. we cannot identify the cause in the current times. we can isolate the biggest causes of CO2 and the amount emmited; and make a determination if that amount is sufficient to cause warming. because man has been the only emmitter of CO2 is mass quantities; man has to be the cause.
(see next post)

chopitdown

polaris wrote:

yeah ... ok - common counterpoint which only serves to continue to avoid the issue altogether ...

conservation and climate change are intertwined but taking your approach belittles the already costly impact we have already had ...

if it gets more people to conserve and act responsibly and thereby help with pollution etc... how can it belittle anything? Does it really come down to the ego's of the global warming proponents being bruised if people don't follow their suggestions b/c of global warming fears? I dont' see the difference in conserving resources, having corporations scrub their air, asking polluters to decrease pollution whether it be for global warming or for health related issues, or for allocation of resources. Who cares how you get those things done (legally) as long as people do. It would seem to me that the more people you get to partake in the above the better it is for earth and for people...who cares which PAC/ group gets credit for it?

NoK

chopitdown wrote:

if it gets more people to conserve and act responsibly and thereby help with pollution etc... how can it belittle anything? Does it really come down to the ego's of the global warming proponents being bruised if people don't follow their suggestions b/c of global warming fears? I dont' see the difference in conserving resources, having corporations scrub their air, asking polluters to decrease pollution whether it be for global warming or for health related issues, or for allocation of resources. Who cares how you get those things done (legally) as long as people do. It would seem to me that the more people you get to partake in the above the better it is for earth and for people...who cares which PAC/ group gets credit for it?

Most people need that extra jolt to do things. You tell them you're gonna die because of global warming, they will automatically try to stop it. If you tell them please stop polluting they will tell you to go f*** yourself. Quite simple really.

onelongsong

for those still not convinced i direct your attention to ice core studies. in the early 70's; ice core samples showed an increase of lead in the atmosphere several times that of any known samples. when lead was banned in gasoline; that lead level dropped back to normal in a few short years and has maintained that level since then. this proves man's effect on the planet can be seen in several years; and not hundreds or thousands as some would like you to believe.

since ice core samples show an increase of temperature far above normal levels; and core samples taken from corals thousands of years old confirm this warming; and most of all; satellite photos show massive losses of ice*; not seen in normal warming/cooling cycles; the only logical explanation would be intervention by man.

* nasa reported watching 1250 sq miles of ice dissapear in a 3 week perion back in 2005. this prompted an expidicion which found that meltwater was filling crevasses and re-freezing; which expanded and caused large masses of ice to break away. satallite photos also show that in 2000; our mass of ice would've covered the us; in 2005; the ice would've only covered the area west of the mississippi.

no matter how many idiots you line up to dissagree with the normal concensus; you cannot ignore the scientific evidence nor what you can see with your own eyes.

MOTIVE.
these studies usually have a motive or hidden agenda. since the canadian economic structure is based primarily on oil; a study with these results may convince people to continue using oil at the current rate.

polaris

chopitdown wrote:

if it gets more people to conserve and act responsibly and thereby help with pollution etc... how can it belittle anything? Does it really come down to the ego's of the global warming proponents being bruised if people don't follow their suggestions b/c of global warming fears? I dont' see the difference in conserving resources, having corporations scrub their air, asking polluters to decrease pollution whether it be for global warming or for health related issues, or for allocation of resources. Who cares how you get those things done (legally) as long as people do. It would seem to me that the more people you get to partake in the above the better it is for earth and for people...who cares which PAC/ group gets credit for it?

hey ... don't get me wrong - definitely not a bad thing ... the problem is that conserving resources because of pollution isn't going to address climate change ...

the reality is that to address climate change and to at least mitigate some of the most devastating impacts will require a full scale global co-operation that we have yet to see ... it will require a plan that goes well beyond a clean air/water program ...

edit:
as for the ego thing - that is laughable ... it's about the fact that what has been prognosticated long ago is coming to fruition now - not, in a decade or a century ... right now ... many have suffered already due to the impacts of climate change ... it's whether or not people are willing to accept those consequences now ...

chopitdown

NoK wrote:

Most people need that extra jolt to do things. You tell them you're gonna die because of global warming, they will automatically try to stop it. If you tell them please stop polluting they will tell you to go f*** yourself. Quite simple really.

and some people feel that that extra jolt is an over-rection and they say quit over-reacting...it's not that big a deal...example: the situation we're in. I say hit people / corporations in the pocket as well

onelongsong

NoK wrote:

Most people need that extra jolt to do things. You tell them you're gonna die because of global warming, they will automatically try to stop it. If you tell them please stop polluting they will tell you to go f*** yourself. Quite simple really.

2/3 of the population will die because of global warming. we've passed the point of no return. the ice predicted to be melted by 2050 is already melted. from this point on; the meltwater will add dramatically to the rise in sea levels. since 2/3 of the population lives near coasts and major rivers; they will have to evacuate yet they are not prepared. especially when they have to leave their equity behind as it's then worthless.

onelongsong

polaris wrote:

hey ... don't get me wrong - definitely not a bad thing ... the problem is that conserving resources because of pollution isn't going to address climate change ...

the reality is that to address climate change and to at least mitigate some of the most devastating impacts will require a full scale global co-operation that we have yet to see ... it will require a plan that goes well beyond a clean air/water program ...

edit:
as for the ego thing - that is laughable ... it's about the fact that what has been prognosticated long ago is coming to fruition now - not, in a decade or a century ... right now ... many have suffered already due to the impacts of climate change ... it's whether or not people are willing to accept those consequences now ...

i'd also like to add; that the melting of our ice cover in the 4 extinctions triggered by global warming; took only a decade. if we are so stupid as to not look back at history to see what happened last time; we deserve to die; as happened to life in the last extinctions.

NoK

chopitdown wrote:

and some people feel that that extra jolt is an over-rection and they say quit over-reacting...it's not that big a deal...example: the situation we're in. I say hit people / corporations in the pocket as well

If you threaten people's lives you'd usually get a "please I don't wanna die" rather than a "oh quit over-reacting" but I agree there will be many cases where it will occur.

I agree money is the second most valuable thing to humans. It would be very effective.

onelongsong wrote:

2/3 of the population will die because of global warming. we've passed the point of no return. the ice predicted to be melted by 2050 is already melted. from this point on; the meltwater will add dramatically to the rise in sea levels. since 2/3 of the population lives near coasts and major rivers; they will have to evacuate yet they are not prepared. especially when they have to leave their equity behind as it's then worthless.

I think the first reaction to this would be "quit over-reacting". Is that the way people usually respond to you?

onelongsong

chopitdown wrote:

avg temp of 82 in december...hell i'd become a global warming advocate for a free trip to Bali
Let's not kid ourselves...some of those scientists saying there is global warming also have something to gain (money by funding and by business relations) by saying it is happening. I still think they should approach this from a conservation standpoint rather than a global warming standpoint.

here's why global waming got a bad rap. scientists live off grants. starting about 10 to 12 years ago; (when al gore was in office) all a scientist had to say was they're studiing global warming. those requests were rubber stamped. since everyone has a different opinion; we've gotten several different opinions. this is why we have peer review. something this study hasn't bothered with.

chopitdown

onelongsong wrote:

here's why global waming got a bad rap. scientists live off grants. starting about 10 to 12 years ago; (when al gore was in office) all a scientist had to say was they're studiing global warming. those requests were rubber stamped. since everyone has a different opinion; we've gotten several different opinions. this is why we have peer review. something this study hasn't bothered with.

if only there was a thread that talked a bit about this...;)
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=266393

onelongsong

NoK wrote:

I think the first reaction to this would be "quit over-reacting". Is that the way people usually respond to you?

PLEASE; PROVE ME WRONG. i wish someone; anyone could prove me wrong. 10 years ago when we had time to make a difference; this would have been over-reacting. but i wasn't saying this at that time. i was giving workable alternatives. at this point in time; with the evidence we have; it's no longer over-reacting. it's a statement of fact.

NoK

onelongsong wrote:

PLEASE; PROVE ME WRONG. i wish someone; anyone could prove me wrong. 10 years ago when we had time to make a difference; this would have been over-reacting. but i wasn't saying this at that time. i was giving workable alternatives. at this point in time; with the evidence we have; it's no longer over-reacting. it's a statement of fact.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for finding solutions or at least minimizing damage (as you believe) but if you come to people with such a message thats the first thing they'll tell you. There's a limit to the amount you can provoke someone and get a positive reaction from them.