Report Released on December 20, 2007

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Notes and references
1 This statement concentrates on climate change associated with global warming. We use the UNFCCC definition of climate change, which is ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods’.

2 IPCC (2001). Third Assessment Report. We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

3 IEA (2004). World Energy Outlook 4. Although long-term projections of future world energy demand and supply are highly uncertain, the World Energy Outlook produced by the International Energy Agency (IEA) is a useful source of information about possible future energy scenarios.

4 With special emphasis on the first principle of the UNFCCC, which states: ‘The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof’.

5 Recognising and building on the IPCC’s ongoing work on emission scenarios.

Do you see what they are relying on? The very same study that I referred to in my earlier post, from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

YES… the one that has been totally discredited by the fact that it omitted all scientific comment that did not agree with the IPCC’s agenda. The same report that listed 2,500 names of persons, of which many were in total disagreement that man-made global warming was occurring!

And then did you look at the bottom of this report you pointed to? Totally unlegible signatures…… WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE ? They didn’t even print their names under their signatures to allow us to identify them! Are they ashamed of what they are saying? They should be !

And the strongest statement I saw in this “report” was…..

It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. (the “2″ refers back to the IPCC report as shown int the footnotes I quoted above !)

Oh boy… that’s really some consensus ! Unlegible names signed to an article that uses a debunked and fraudulent report as it’s source!

Now look again at the Petition I pointed you to. Firstly the names are all TYPED and legible, along with their credentials and degrees. There are doctors physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, environmental scientists, and none of these people were paid for their opinions. They have volunteered their good names to stand up to the fraud of man-made global warming. And did I mention that there are over SEVENTEEN-THOUSAND OF THESE NAMES…. oh…. yeah, I guess I did mention that.

Which “consensus” are you talking about?

Maxx on April 13, 2007 at 12:33 PM

I clicked the link you gave. You cannot be serious. This group has a PO box as their address and the list of names is just that–a list, no associated university or corporate or institute or any published articles.

The consensus I refer to is that of the NAS.

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer

Consensus means nothing? So I guess you don’t favor the notion of peer review?

As for me, the National Academy of Scientists says “A” and Rush Limbaugh says “B”. Hmmm, this is a pickle…LOL

honora on April 13, 2007 at 9:28 AM

Which “consensus” are you talking about honora? Are you talking about the fraudulent list of 2,500 scientists that the UN has, where the significant finding AGAINST the theory of man made global warming were edited out. And many scientists names on the list that ACTUALLY DO NOT CONCURE with the theory of man made global warming…..

or

Are you talking about the all volunteer consensus of over 17,000 (Seventeen-THOUSAND) persons ….. mostly with advanced degrees, that concur that man made global warming is a total FRAUD.

Which “consensus” are you talking about?

What there is NO debate about, though, is the fact that CO2 absorbs electromagnetic radiation as it passes through the atmosphere. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA… (a little “Rush” lingo there, folks), and the fact that CO2 has increased significantly since 1940.

And there is zero, zilch, nada, data that suggests that increased CO2 is 1) primarily man made or 2) a net bad thing. CO2 levels have risen and fallen throughout the history of the planet, with and without man. Take a look at the Vostok graph. What causes CO2 to spike 300,000 years ago? Flinstone SUV’s? There is a theory, and that’s all it is, that humans have caused CO2 levels to be higher than they have been before. There is no scientific proof. Consensus means dick. That’s not science.

Better yet, tell me why Newt didn’t state the very simple scientific fact that CO2 is one of the building blocks for growth of plant life and crops? How does Newt, or anyone else know, that an increase in CO2 isn’t a net beneficial thing? We do have a hunger problem on the planet, maybe an increase in CO2 is just what the doctor ordered. In any case, it might not be worse than the global cooling crisis of the 70’s. Remember that? A lot of consensus around that one, too.

I say again, I am not in favor of doing anything until we know what really is the cause of global climate change and if it is a net positive or negative. Newt would do better to lend his prestige to facts.

JackStraw on April 10, 2007 at 10:52 PM

Consensus means nothing? So I guess you don’t favor the notion of peer review?

As for me, the National Academy of Scientists says “A” and Rush Limbaugh says “B”. Hmmm, this is a pickle…LOL

Honora ain’t the smartest cookie. Arguing with him/her is probably going to kill some brain cells and shrink your penis. Consider yourself warned. If you get bored though, its always fun to bring up her assertion about Lyndon Johnson’s second term. She made that boo boo months ago, and its still cracking me up.

Now back to the Mexicans. They’re global warming deniers, aren’t they? I knew it. Bastards.

Professor Blather on April 11, 2007 at 3:29 PM

So Johnson didn’t have a second term? Tell me, who won the 1964 election?

All this whining about non-global warming is just a knee-jerk reaction to anything liberal. Newt is not, and never will be a knee-jerk reactionary to ideas regardless of their origination. His brilliance is demonstrated in his ability to take the libs issue and accomplish it by conservative means. Thereby taking the issue away from them.

Just pay attention to Kerry’s reaction to Newts answer. He was at a total loss for words. At that point, Newt started taking the issue away from him.

Brilliant!

LegendHasIt on April 10, 2007 at 8:22 PM

Yeah…what you said.

What he said was absolutely correct. There is certainly a consensus that we are contributing to it. There is no question that anthropogenic CO2 emissions will affect the climate, one way or the other. The questions are how significant is our contribution and is climate change bad or avoidable even if it is? There is no evidence of any consensus on those questions.

… so chill out and quit embarrasing yourselves

DaveS on April 10, 2007 at 10:00 PM

You too.

Dude, this isn’t your living room. The atmosphere is an incredibly complex system. All theories of warming due to CO2 involve the upper atmosphere warming first.

In your other post, you implied (by your assertion that CO2 can’t absorb the same wavelengths on the way down that it absorbs post reflection) that there was no excess heat in the upper atmosphere.

Regarding the “global cooling”, despite what you have been told, there was never a “consensus” of that in the seventies. It was a media phenomenon, for the most part–as evidence by the sensational Time cover you just linked–and much like the media circus today around the fabricated “consensus”.

No consensus? Get the f outta here? Really?

Why do you think we’ve been arguing that point against those that repeatedly tell us that there is such a consensus? It took you this long to figure out the fundamental point we were making? Geez, you’re sure one to make this kind of comment:

Dude, no offense, but you are just making stuff up as you go. Here’s what basically just transpired, in another language: I said, “If you turn the car key, the engine will turn on.” And you said, “If you start the car, the engine will turn on anyway”.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

And why do you think we’ve been criticizing Newt for essentially agreeing with the so-called consensus when he concedes to the stipulation that humans are causing global warming, as illustrated in this exchange:

“My message, I think is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere —”
“And do it urgently, now?” Kerry interrupted.
“Urgently, yes,” Gingrich said.

Then you go on with this:

And I tend to believe the Russian study that predicts cooling. You guys need to learn to actually THINK about things instead of reflexively trying to spin every little thing you read… this comment section has been exhibiting more and more of the sort of mindless group-think that I expect from Kos for months now.

I’m trying to get you to realize that just because some column says “Remember the global cooling from the 1970’s?”, it doesn’t actually mean there was some consensus in the 1970’s that there was anthropogenic global cooling. Just like, today, when you read an article in Time about global warming, it doesn’t actually mean that there is a true consensus on global warming today.

Did it possibly occur to you that the whole reason I brought those articles into the picture in the first place was to make the exact same point you just did (i.e. that there is no consensus despite the repeated claims to the contrary)?

I dub thee, Dave S., Master of the Obvious(TM).

Maybe if you spent less time myopically focusing on one small variable among an infinite number that affect global temperatures, you could have figured that out sooner and saved yourself a lot of typing.

But thanks for playing, it was fun.

Just like, today, when you read an article in Time about global warming, it doesn’t actually mean that there is a true consensus on global warming today.

DaveS on April 11, 2007 at 6:14 PM

This is probably the whole point that many have tried to articulate.

There is no consensus, although those who stand to gain from it claim there is, and are trying their damndest to shut off debate.

Knowing there is no consensus, and knowing there are many experts who disagree with those who claim consensus, makes it rather disheartening to see Newt take the position that he did.

Electromagnetic energy of those wavelengths can be absorbed either upon entering the atmosphere from space or upon reflection from the earth’s surface. The fact that a large amount of that energy gets through is due to the fact that earth’s atmosphere is very CO2 poor relative to other times in it’s geological history (currently around 0.04%).

No, it cannot be absorbed by CO2 on its way in. The amount of energy that reaches the earth has nothing to do with CO2, at least not directly. There are feedbacks, however. CO2 affects what leaves the Earth.

If global warming is indeed occurring, there will be a net gain of heat energy in the upper atmosphere anyway.

Dude, no offense, but you are just making stuff up as you go. Here’s what basically just transpired, in another language: I said, “If you turn the car key, the engine will turn on.” And you said, “If you start the car, the engine will turn on anyway”.

Heat rises. More heat on the surface will translate into more heat in the upper atmosphere.

Dude, this isn’t your living room. The atmosphere is an incredibly complex system. All theories of warming due to CO2 involve the upper atmosphere warming first.

Regarding the “global cooling”, despite what you have been told, there was never a “consensus” of that in the seventies. It was a media phenomenon, for the most part–as evidence by the sensational Time cover you just linked–and much like the media circus today around the fabricated “consensus”.

I’m just trying to get you guys to quit saying stupid crap, and latching onto every little urban legend that you think supports your case. After 140+ comments of you guys crying about “consensus”, you just suddenly decided that “Consensus” was fine when some blog told you that Russian scientists had established a consensus about cooling.

That doesn’t make you look so good in a debate. Rather, it makes you look like you will just latch onto anything that superficially supports something you want to believe, even when it directly contradicts something you said just a few comments up.

And I tend to believe the Russian study that predicts cooling. You guys need to learn to actually THINK about things instead of reflexively trying to spin every little thing you read… this comment section has been exhibiting more and more of the sort of mindless group-think that I expect from Kos for months now.

I’m trying to get you to realize that just because some column says “Remember the global cooling from the 1970’s?”, it doesn’t actually mean there was some consensus in the 1970’s that there was anthropogenic global cooling. Just like, today, when you read an article in Time about global warming, it doesn’t actually mean that there is a true consensus on global warming today.

So – can I play? Are we blaming illegal immigrants for global warming, or blaming global warming for illegal immigration?

Believe it or not, Blather, the last issue of Atlantic Monthly blamed Darfur on global warming. I am not making this up.

(sotto voce)…you’re in trouble…you’re in trouble…

honora on April 11, 2007 at 3:17 PM

(Chuckles) No, It’s just never my intent to personally attack anyone here, just challenge ideas, point out hypocrisy, closed-mindedness, etc. I felt I was misunderstood and took it upon myself to try to clear the air. I hope the humor wasn’t lost entirely — I certainly cracked myself up :^)

Professor Blather

Just so you, know I had no intention of hijacking this thread.For that, I apologize. …. I made a comment about the global warming issue this morning and Honora immediately attacked my global warming comment based on the previous days exchange.

Whatever. Truly not interested. I’m busy learning new rap lyrics. And hair styling tips.

Honora ain’t the smartest cookie. Arguing with him/her is probably going to kill some brain cells and shrink your penis. Consider yourself warned. If you get bored though, its always fun to bring up her assertion about Lyndon Johnson’s second term. She made that boo boo months ago, and its still cracking me up.

Now back to the Mexicans. They’re global warming deniers, aren’t they? I knew it. Bastards.

Just so you, know I had no intention of hijacking this thread.For that, I apologize.

The discussion about illegal immigration was from another thread started yesterday; O’Reilly, Geraldo go berserk over illegal alien drunk driver

I had to audacity to assert that illegal immigration was not a benefit to our economy and Honora got pretty nasty as usual. I made a comment about the global warming issue this morning and Honora immediately attacked my global warming comment based on the previous days exchange.

I sincerely apologize, I should have just ignored him or her.

********************
db no problem, I did not realize you were just kidding. I apologize for being so sensitive.

Sweet mother of God!!! I am finally making headway with this guy and the Blathster rears his ugly (figuratively only of course) head. What’s a girl to do?

honora on April 11, 2007 at 3:14 PM

Don’t sweat it, sis. You go ahead and have your fun. I wasn’t even interested enough to find out how exactly you latched onto illegal Mexicans on a thread about Newt’s views on global warming.

And in case it wasn’t abundantly clear, the whole global warming thing is so mind-numbingly stupid that there’s not much to say on the subject. Not when I could be learning about Anna Nicole’s nappy-headed baby. Or something. Slow news day.

Knock yourself out. But try not to say anything too enormously stupid in a historical sense. I did some hard ab work yesterday, and laughing at some patented Honora ignorance might be enjoyable, but it would hurt. So let’s leave your views on Johnson’s second term and your theories on military matters for another day, kay? I know you don’t want me cracking another rib. That’s wrong.

Okay, back to them damn Mexicans. I shoulda know global warming was all their fault.

1) Sorry, just a joke. Aimed more at her (she is often called a troll) — sorry to you too, honora, if I offended you.

2) I don’t recall attacking you.

db on April 11, 2007 at 3:11 PM

(sotto voce)…you’re in trouble…you’re in trouble…

Do I really want to read up the thread and find out how you krazy kids went from global warming to Mexican illegals?

Ah, who I am to talk. I wanted to talk about sharks. Cuz sharks are cool. Everybody likes sharks.

So – can I play? Are we blaming illegal immigrants for global warming, or blaming global warming for illegal immigration?

I get confused. I should just consult the Goracle on this. He’d know.

Professor Blather on April 11, 2007 at 3:08 PM

Sweet mother of God!!! I am finally making headway with this guy and the Blathster rears his ugly (figuratively only of course) head. What’s a girl to do?