|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-02-2009, 04:32 AM
Sangetsu,
Have you previously dealt firsthand with this topic? I was looking for a list of climatologists online, and couldn't find one as extensive as the one you posted (maybe I didn't look hard enough, but I did find a lists of 707 signatures....) Continue to provide a good insight into this level of actual discussion. 31 Whether therefore ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God. 33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. 
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-02-2009, 11:15 PM
Quote:
Interestingly enough, the vast majority of scientists who wrote the IPCC reports were not climatologists either, should we disregard their opinions as well? And, what about Al Gore? What is his degree in? Climatology? Does he even have a degree? Ah yes, he has a degree in government, I guess that makes him an expert of climatology, doesn't it?
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-02-2009, 11:34 PM
Quote:
I got this list from S Fred Singer, all of the scientists named were signatories to the "Leipzig Declaration", which was presented to the UN a few years ago after Al Gore proclaimed that Global Warming had been confirmed by a "consensus of the world's leading scientists", and that "the science is settled". In reality, chapter 8 of the 1996 IPCC report was actually written by Dr Ben Santer and 8 other scientists. This section is the most controversial part of the IPCC Global Warming report, because it originally said that there was no proof that Global Warming was indeed caused by man, or by greenhouse gases. This information was part of the peer-reviewed report, and was supposed to be included in the published report. It was also included in the IPCC/UN meeting in Madrid, Spain, in 1996. But, as a result if pressure from policy-makers within the UN, Dr Santer and his 8 associates deleted the these paragraphs: * “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.” * “While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part [of climate change observed] to [man-made] causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data – an issue of primary relevance to policy makers.” * “Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.” * “While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.” * “When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, ‘We do not know.’ And, without consulting the reviewing scientists, Dr Santer, et al, added these 2 paragraphs in their place: "There is evidence of an emerging patten of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols … from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change … These results point toward a human influence on global climate.” "The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate." In this case, a "consensus of the world's leading scientists" did not agree, in fact, they agreed that there was no proof that global warming was caused by man and/or greenhouse gases at all. Yet, we have all been told otherwise. But now it appears to be irrelevant anyway, as it seems global warming is not even occurring.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-02-2009, 11:53 PM
Quote:
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-03-2009, 12:11 AM
Quote:
I guess no one here knows that the Northwest passage used to be navigable by ship in the 19th and early 20th centuries, which means that there was less sea ice then than there is now. If the world has been getting warmer, why is there more sea ice now than there was a century ago?
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-03-2009, 01:51 AM
Sangetsu,
Thanks, I may very well archive this information, it seems some of this information is just hard to fine, amongst the web (again it could be my search ability or it's just hard to discern information from so many sites..). 31 Whether therefore ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God. 33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-03-2009, 02:33 AM
Quote:
The first to make it through the ice was Roald Amundsen in his ship "Gjoa."
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
12-03-2009, 02:55 AM
Yes, but it was still doable. Historically this planet has been much warmer even a few hundred years ago.
As to "Climatologist"..Come on, how accurate are weathermen really? Yet you would disbelieve accounts against Global warming by actual scientists, who are from advanced fields of study..with actual evidence taken over decades? As I mentioned before, this whole "climate change" BS is simply designed to bring about global government and destroy national sovereignty. It's also designed to destroy industrialized nations economically and "redistribute" their wealth to poor third world nations, many of wich don't contribute anything but Pirates..like Somolia.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
