Prosecutions Coming for Global Warming Deniers?

[jaxnative]

so now wikipedia has been 'infiltrated' by 'secret enviro-agents'.

Yea, it's kind of like those mad scientists who don't agree with the current "climate science" who always seem to be tied in with evil oil.

[RiversideGator]

Oops.  So much for the vaunted scientific consensus.  The Physics and Society Forum of the American Physical Society (the second largest organization of physicists in the world) has now reached a consensus that global warming is bunk:

"Considerable presence" of skeptics

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.  The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science.  The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling.   A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"

In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."

According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."

Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming.   "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."

Updated 7/17/2008

After publication of this story, the APS responded with a  statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.

http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm

[RiversideGator]

so now wikipedia has been 'infiltrated' by 'secret enviro-agents'.

Yea, it's kind of like those mad scientists who don't agree with the current "climate science" who always seem to be tied in with evil oil.

Jax native, you are more than welcome to produce a roster of credible climatologists who arent backed by one of the oil companies that dispute the overwhelming consensus.

In fact I look forward to it.

Here is one prominent climatologist (Dr. Roy Spencer) who disagrees with your theory:

ABSTRACT

This article addresses new satellite and modeling evidence that previous satellite diagnoses of high climate sensitivity--which directly translate into predictions of dangerous levels of global warming--contain a large spurious bias. It is shown that those exaggerated estimates were the result of faulty assumptions regarding clouds when analyzing variations in average global temperature and average reflected sunlight off of the Earth.

Specifically, it has been assumed (explicitly or implicitly) that, for global averages on time scales of three months or more, temperature variations cause clouds to change, but that cloud variations do not cause temperature to change. But when properly filtered, the satellite data reveal evidence of cloud variations indeed causing temperature changes, and that this source of natural climate variability biases the estimate of climate sensitivity in the direction of a very sensitive climate system.

The new interpretation suggests a very low sensitivity. If the new sensitivity estimate is accurate, it would suggest only 0.5 deg. C of manmade warming by the year 2100. The new sensitivity estimate also suggests that warming over the last century can not be explained by human greenhouse gas emissions alone, but instead might require a mostly natural explanation.

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Climate-Sensitivity-Holy-Grail.htm

[RiversideGator]

Here is another one (recently deceased though):

Reid Bryson (7 June 1920 â€" 11 June 2008 [1] ) was an American atmospheric scientist, geologist and meteorologist. He was a professor emeritus of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He completed a B.A. in geology at Denison University in 1941 and a Ph.D. in meteorology from University of Chicago in 1948. In 1946 he joined the faculty of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and in 1948 he became the first chairman of the Department of Meteorology. He became the first director of the Institute for Environmental Studies in 1970.

Views

Bryson was skeptical of the theory of anthropogenic global warming. While he argued that climate change and a global increase in temperature are real, he did not believe that they are caused by human activity. Rather, he argued that they are part of natural global climate cycles, particularly the end of the Little Ice Age:

    "All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd," Bryson continues. "Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air." [2]

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

[RiversideGator]

Oh and here is another real prominent one.  Dr. William Gray:

Gray is skeptical of current theories of human-induced global warming, which he says is supported by scientists afraid of losing grant funding[1] and promoted by government leaders and environmentalists seeking world government.[2]. He believes that humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth and has stated that "We're brainwashing our children."[3]. He asked, "How can we trust climate forecasts 50 and 100 years into the future (that can’t be verified in our lifetime) when they are not able to make shorter seasonal or yearly forecasts that could be verified?"[4]

Gray said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error. He cites statistics showing that there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperature, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.[3]

Gray does not say there has not been any warming, but states "I don't question that. And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."[5]

According to an earlier interview reported by Joel Aschenbach, Gray had similarly said that the current warming in the past decades is a natural cycle, driven by a global ocean circulation that manifests itself in the North Atlantic Ocean as the Gulf Stream [2].

In a December 2006 interview with David Harsanyi of The Denver Post, Gray said, "They've been brainwashing us for 20 years, starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15â€"20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was." In this interview, Gray cites the global cooling article in Newsweek from 1975 as evidence that such a scare has happened in the past.[5]

In 2006, Gray predicted a cooling trend by 2009-2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray

I would note also that we have seen a cooling trend begin just a year or two earlier than Dr. Gray predicted.

[RiversideGator]

And another:

George Kukla is retired professor of climatology at Columbia University and a researcher at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

Kukla was co-author of a chapter in the book "Natural Climate Variability on Decade to Century Time Scales" published by the National Research Council.

Kukla believes all glacial periods in Earth's history began with global warming (understood as an increase of area-weighted average global mean temperature). He believes Earth's recent warming is mostly natural and will ultimately lead to a new ice age.

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

[RiversideGator]

And another:

William Kininmonth is noted for his views as an opponent of global warming theory and frequently writes on the topic of climate change. He believes that the warming trend of the recent century is not unusual, and he is critical of the simple model of climate systems represented by the IPCC. While Kininmonth believes that anthropogenic sources may make a small contribution to global warming, he believes the natural variability far exceeds that contribution, and this poses serious hazards for human kind.

Kininmonth suggests that it would be unwise to commit scarce resources to reduce carbon dioxide emissions when there is insufficient evidence to support the proposition that global warming is caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels. Like other global warming skeptics, such as Bjørn Lomborg, he believes that the diversion of resources from infrastructure projects, particularly in developing countries, would be counterproductive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kininmonth_%28meteorologist%29

[RiversideGator]

Yet another:

Marcel Leroux is a French climatologist, a former Professor of Climatology at Jean Moulin University in France, and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risk, and Environment.

Marcel Leroux argues on his book "Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Erring Ways of Climatology" that the case for global warming is based on models which, with their insufficiencies in the understanding and explanation of weather phenomena, are not reliable to support this prediction: "So we do not have to resort to complicated models to tell us that CO2 brings about, theoretically, an increase in temperature... . However, this hypothesis has never been demonstrated as far as climate is concerned, and remains in the realm of the virtual." He also poses the question if warming may be considered a benefit in some regions.

On the causes of climate change, he writes in a section entitled "Conclusion: The greenhouse effect is not the cause of climate change": "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, with climatic consequences slowed by the inertial effect of glacial accumulations; solar activity, thought by some to be responsible for half of the 0.6°C rise in temperature, and by others to be responsible for all of it, which situation certainly calls for further analysis; volcanism and its associated aerosols (and especially sulphates), whose (short-term) effects are indubitable; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned." (Leroux 2005, p. 120)

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

[RiversideGator]

The good Dr. Tim Patterson:

Climate change

Patterson appeared before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in 2005 and testified:
“    There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years... On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?[1]    â€

In June 2007 he authored a general interest article in the Financial Post (part of the National Post) predicting general climatic cooling as the sun enters Solar cycle 25 about 2018. He based his prediction on the close correlation between solar and climate cycles in his high resolution analysis of late Holocene cores deposited under anoxic conditions within deep Western Canadian fjords.[2] Solar cycle 25 will be as weak as solar cycles in the early 19th century during a very cold phase of the Little Ice Age. At this time drought and short growing seasons would have made present day agricultural practices used in areas like the grain growing region of western Canada impossible. In a June 2007 presentation to the annual meeting of the Ontario Agri Business Association in Huntsville, Ontario he stated that "climatic cooling associated with Solar Cycle 25 should be of concern to the Canadian agricultural sector. During any climatic warming agricultural methods used to the south can be immediately adapted. However, cooling such as may occur beginning about 2018 would be an agricultural and national disaster as no one is farming north of us."

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

[RiversideGator]

I wont continue but I can post more if you would like.  Try linking all of them to Exxon-Mobil.   

[RiversideGator]

Meanwhile, temperatures are still falling:

Since the phase-transition in mean global surface temperature late in 2001, a pronounced downtrend has set in. In the cold winter of 2007/8, record sea-ice extents were observed at both Poles. The January-to-January fall in temperature from 2007-2008 was the greatest since global records began in 1880. Data sources: Hadley Center monthly combined land and sea surface temperature anomalies; University of Alabama at Huntsville Microwave Sounding Unit monthly lower-troposphere anomalies; Linear regressions

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

[samiam]

'In his book, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, Charles H. Hapgood revealed that the 1513 Piri Re'is map exhibited a knowledge of the true ice-free portions of Antarctica. The longitudes for twenty-four sites are accurate within one half a degree of the true positions. This standard accuracy could not be matched until 1735 when John Harrison invented the marine chronometer.
'In the mid-1960's Hapgood and his students at Keene State College began to study a series of ancient, yet amazingly accurate, maps of the globe. Strangely, the charts revealed areas of the world, such as China, North America, South America, and ice-free portions of Antarctica, long before they had been drawn by European explorers. The ice cap in those portions of Antarctica are presently about a mile thick.
If we do not truly know what the earth’s climate was in the past how can we predict the future.
We should not wean ourselves from energy sources that pollute the enviromet because of a fear that we as humans are great enough to change the planets temperature, we should do it because it’s the right thing to do and I don't intent to say stop using oil now, Over the years we should make an attempt to use less and less.
'

[Midway ®]

So, what does he know?

Obviously not as much as the inhabitant of riversidegatorworld^tm.

[Charleston native]

Talk about delusional, Stephen. What's the point in debating with you? You cling to this nonsense even better than us "bitter religious folk who cling to their guns".

Here is something to chew on: any climatologist who ignores the principle source of light, warmth, and energy on this planet as the primary mover of climate on it is a quack. They can spit out horse manure from a computer...it's not going to make it accurate.

[RiversideGator]

So, one is dead

So the statements he made just a year or so ago do not count because he is now dead?  That makes sense.   

, another is actually a 'forum' which you originally read to be 50 thousand physicists associated with the APS (not climatologists) turns out to merely be a subforum that has since been distanced by the APS

I did not cite the forum in the same passage as the list of climatologists but yes those are actual scientists who disagree with the GW theory.  Actual scientists disagreeing means the almighty consensus is that much weaker than you claim.

, a meteorologist (Kukla)

Uhh no.  According to the item I posted this is his background:  "George Kukla is retired professor of climatology at Columbia University and a researcher at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory".  Certainly a "professor of climatology" should be deemed a "climatologist".

a well known pawn of exxon (Patterson)

Source please.  Pardon me if I dont take your word for this.   

and a french climatologist(Leroux) whose last work on the subject was 2005, from a french scientific body that is part of the global consensus and who has since changed his opinion.

1)  He is French.  Does this somehow invalidate his conclusions?  Are we to believe that only American scientists produce valid research now?   
2)  2005 was just 3 years ago.  The facts since then are that the climate has cooled fairly significantly which does not exactly support your belief system.
3)  I find no evidence that he changed his position.  Please post cite evidence of this.  Pardon me again if I do not take your word for this.   

Oh and lest we forget you also included William Kininmonth, a leading proponent of extreme climate change who acknowledges human contributions to Global Warming, but feels that natural causes are going to be far more important but just as devastating.

He states that CO2 is not the main culprit but that natural variability of temperatures is the primary driver of climate change.  This doesnt exactly support your ideology of global warming either.

Do you ever bother to actually research ANYTHING before you post on it?

Actually yes.  Do you ever provide sources which are not off some far left kook fringe blog?

Nice work, Riverside.  And typically dishonest.

Unlike you Stephen, I have not been accused of dishonesty by anyone else.