iEntry 10th Anniversary RSS Feed About Us

What do the Global Warming Skeptics Have to Say?

Photo courtesy scottfeldstein.

While Al Gore was quick to declare a global warming consensus and the debate over, 650 international scientists say, “not so fast!” So what do these former IPCC scientists, geologists, atmospheric scientists and other professionals say about global warming? Atmospheric scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg says, “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” Geologist Dr. David Gee remarks, “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?“

Read more:thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1101704.html

Keep up-to-date with the latest at Skeptics Global Warming!
Subscribe to my FREE RSS Feed in your reader today!
Or, subscribe to FREE updates in your email.
Alternatively, you can follow me on Twitter.

About the Author

has written 2022 stories on this site.

A social and fiscal conservative, I scour the news for information that disputes the current man-made global warming indoctrination that takes place around the world. I take a rather sarcastic approach to reporting on the nonsense being spewed by the talking heads in the media and the governments around the world.

2 Comments on “What do the Global Warming Skeptics Have to Say?”

  • Jeremy wrote on 21 January, 2009, 10:12

    Have you read the famous paper with the 650 dissenting scientists? There’s a whole breadth of opinions in it. Funny how skeptics always like the quotes about there actually being a cooling trend, rather than these examples:

    “I have no problem recognizing that over the entire past century temperatures have shown a net rise.”
    Peter R Leavitt

    “There is no denying a warming; the discussion is whether it was created by man or whether it is natural.”
    Dr Eduardo Tonni

    “There is little disagreement that some warming has likely occurred”
    Glenn Speck

    I agree there is little or no consensus on the causes of global warming, but the consensus that warming may be happening is considerably broader. Since you often claim that the earth has cooled since 98, that ice coverage is back to 1979 levels, and so on, what do you make of this?

  • Dan Pangburn wrote on 21 January, 2009, 18:43

    You can do the global warming research yourself. Here are credible web sites and what you will find if you bother to look.

    There is over 50 times as much carbon in the oceans as exists in the atmosphere, http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=17726

    Atmospheric carbon dioxide was over ten times the present level 440 mya http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf if the original paper is preferred) when the planet plunged into the Andean-Saharan ice age, http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm . The atmospheric carbon dioxide level and average global temperature for the last 600 million years are plotted on the same graph at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html.

    There is only one complete and exact computer of global climate and that is the planet itself. The results from the ‘planet computer’ are archived in the Vostok and EPICA Antarctic ice cores.

    When carbon dioxide level from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html is plotted on the same graph as the average global temperature anomalies (differences from a reference temperature) from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat it is discovered that the change in atmospheric carbon dioxide level typically lagged average earth temperature change by hundreds of years. It is also discovered that, repeatedly, a temperature increasing trend changed to a decreasing trend with the atmospheric carbon dioxide level higher during the temperature down-trend than it had been when the temperature trend was up. This proves that added atmospheric carbon dioxide has no significant influence on average global temperature and that there is no NET positive feedback in earth’s climate.

    Climate scientists are apparently unaware of this part of science and incorporate features in their atmosphere/ocean global climate models (AOGCMs) that result in significant net positive feedback. This causes the AOGCMs to erroneously predict substantial global warming. Without significant net positive feedback AOGCMs do not predict significant global warming.

    When temperature anomaly data from ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat . and Law Dome, Antarctica carbon dioxide data from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.combined.dat and recent carbon dioxide data from Mauna Loa ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/mlo/ or other sources from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ are plotted on the same graph it is discovered that carbon dioxide and temperature both trended up about half the time and the rest of the time carbon dioxide continued to go up but temperature trended down.

    The conclusion from all this is that anthropogenic global warming is a mistake. Google Dan Pangburn global warming and select the Middlebury site to see most of this already graphed.
    As the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continues to increase and average global temperature doesn’t, a growing number of people, especially those who actually understand the science, are beginning to realize that many climate scientists must have missed something.

    What many in the climate science community appear to be unaware of is how NET feedback actually works in a dynamic system like earth’s climate. If they were aware of it they would realize that the ice core data from the last and previous glacial periods proves that NET positive feedback does not exist in earth’s climate.

SkepticsGlobalWarming.com is an Privacy Policy and Legal
SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline