Search This Blog

Friday, December 18, 2009

The Deniers! (count me in)

The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud*
*And those who are too fearful to do so

I am a denier, apparently. If someone claims that two and two equals five, I am gonna deny it! If someone claims that the globe is warming due to the activities of mankind, I am going to deny that, too! I like the blurb for Lawrence Solomon's new book, The Deniers and thought I would share:

Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.

Guess he never met these guys:

Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."

Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon's devastating book, The Deniers.


Lawrence Solomon is interviewed by Kathryn Lopez in a somewhat antagonistic but cordial manner in this article,

Don’t Deny Yourself

Lawrence Solomon uncovers real inconvenient truths.

Here is are excerpts:

"Kathryn Jean Lopez: Will you feel bad you defended “The Deniers” when we’re all dead?

Lawrence Solomon:
The third world is sustaining terrible environmental damage today and people are losing their source of food and fuel, because too few people have been defending scientists who want nothing more than to have their voices heard, and because journalists have turned a blind eye to the consequences of Kyoto.

Consider this: Kyoto has emerged as the single biggest threat to the global environment. Thanks to Kyoto, we are seeing a revival of megadams that threaten to destroy many of the world’s remaining river valleys, we are seeing a renaissance of nuclear power, which remains a costly and dangerous technology, we are seeing our foodlands turned into fuel lands, and people in the Third World rioting because they can’t afford the doubling of grain prices that has resulted.

Because we have been blinkered, we don’t realize that when we purchase a carbon offset in the west, the other half of that transaction is often a carbon sink in the third world. That carbon sink is typically a fast growing eucalyptus plantation, planted on land that had formerly been farmland or old growth forest.

No area of public policy is more dependent on sound science than environmental protection. Sound science presupposes debate and the free flow of ideas, and scientists who are not castigated when they offer their views.

Thus begins the interview. This is at the end:

"Lopez: What Denier fact could be characterized as most inconvenient for Al Gore?

Solomon: The claim that there is a consensus on climate change. This claim is based on the media’s often repeated claim that the 2000 to 2500 scientists associated with the UN’s panel endorsed the U.N.’s report. In fact, as the Secretariat of the UN panel told me, those 2500 scientists are merely reviewers of some of the hundreds of input studies that went into the mix. They endorsed nothing. There is no consensus and there never has been.

Lopez: But still, the U.N.’s work was peer reviewed, even if some of the peer reviewers disagreed.

Solomon: No, the science in the U.N. reports was not peer reviewed, as it is usually understood. As some of my deniers point out in proper scientific peer reviews the identities of the peer reviewers are kept secret, so that they can be free to make critical comments about the science without fear of recrimination. In the U.N.’s peer review, the reviewers must identify themselves to the scientists they are critiquing, discouraging many from expressing themselves frankly. It gets worse than that, though.

In a normal peer-review process, the critiques from the reviewers are public. If a scientist decides to reject a critique, he must justify his refusal. In the U.N. peer-review process, the system is turned on its head. The scientists don’t need to explain themselves. They can ignore the criticisms and no one will be able to assess if the criticism was rejected for a valid reason. The U.N.’s version of peer review does not meet the standard of professional science.

Lopez: What would you like to see happen for “The Deniers”? Is that reasonable?

Solomon: For my book? I’d like to see it on school shelves, in school libraries, in libraries everywhere, so that students and the public as a whole can judge for themselves whether the science truly is settled.

Lopez: If you could leave every American with one Earth Day point to reflect on, what would it be?

Earth is the sum of an infinite number of ecological niches. Each has its own characteristic, each has its own needs. One size fits all solutions — whether a Kyoto Treaty or a rush to renewable energy or a crash program to install compact fluorescent light bulbs — is fundamentally anti-environmental."


I disagree with some of Solomon's assertions, for I think he is sincerely wrong about how far off these climate alarmists truly are. I do believe that we are now in fact in a period of global cooling that could turn into another Little Ice Age unless the Sun begins working a bit harder. Anybody ever heard of a Maunder Minimum? Does anyone think going back to the days of the Thames freezing completely over and hundreds of inches of snowfall in the greater Chicago area will be profitable for mankind?

Some of the best and most prosperous times of mankind have been times when the temperatures rise, so that crop cultivation is successful farther north and the winters in the temperate zones are less harsh. Back in the days when Greenland was at least partly green and grapes were grown successfully in England, no seaside cities were drowned and no massive tsunami's roared up and swallowed large chunks of the populace.

Guess what? Mankind has absolutely no control over the Sun at all so the arrogant audacity at the heart of the global warming mania truly is that we can actually do much of anything about the weather at all. We can cut down on the most noxious emissions and provide city-dwellers with more breathable air. We can limit emissions of dangerous toxins and control nuclear energy safely. But we cannot add one degree to the global climate nor can we take one away.


Hawkeye® said...

Me too. I'm with ya buddy!

For lots of good info go to...

Best regards...

radar said...

Thanks, Hawkeye! It is obvious now that the entire global warming scenario was a giant scam, based on manipulated data purposely done in order to pad the pockets of investors in carbon-offset companies and to guarantee votes from Greenpeace loonies.

Watt's Up With That noted how US climate stations are being placed in spots that will give artificially high temps and that global warming nuts cherry-picked the warmest readings. Now we know they did the same in the former Soviet Union, which makes it likely that they have done this world-wide. Shameful "scientists" and gullible public.