Quick Upload

Loading...
Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view slideshows. We have detected that you do not have it on your computer.To install it, go here
 
Post to Twitter Post to Twitter
Myspace Hi5 Friendster Xanga LiveJournal Facebook Blogger Tagged Typepad Freewebs BlackPlanet gigya icons
« Prev Comments 1 - 8 of 8 Next »
  • DennisBussey
    DennisBussey said 2 months Edit Delete

    Thank you again guest549d27 for taking the time to review my presentation and providing your comment. I gather from your remarks that you are troubled with that portion of my presentation related to Dr. Richard S. Lindzen. For the benefit of others who may read this exchange, I will repeat that part. It is on slide #19 titled “Skeptics Beware” where I quote Dr. Lindzen’s remarks as follows:
    “Scientist who dissent from the alarmist have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse.
    There are peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest.”
    Young scientists today who dare to stray from the alarmist dogma of man-made global warming often have to choose between silence through intimidation or jeopardizing their employment.
    Only the most senior scientists today can withstand up against the alarmist gale and defy the climate scientist, advocates and policymakers.”
    guest549d27, it is my understanding that all of Dr. Lindzen’s above comments are factually correct. I will welcome any evidence you have to the contrary. Failing this, it appears your comment is irrelevant.
    I suggest guest549d27 there are more important details to consider in the dialogue regarding global warming. For example consider these facts:
    1. The earth has been in a warming trend the past 10,000 years.
    2. There has been approximately a 1 degree Celsius rise in the past 100 years (and that's assuming the measurements can be trusted).
    3. There has actually been no temperature increase in the past 10 years, and temperatures have actually gone down the past 7 years. There is nothing in the mathematical models that would explain this decline.
    4. Based on sound geological data, CO2 historically has been a lagging indicator of warming, usually showing up several hundred years AFTER temperatures increase.
    5. Several other uninhabited planets and moons in the solar system have had similar temperature increases that are apparently due to solar activity, not human produced CO2.
    6. Human produced CO2 is very insignificant, maybe 1%, of all of the other warming gasses (the cattle on the earth, belching methane, contribute more to global warming than human produced CO2)
    7. According to most experts on both sides of the argument, all of the proposed solutions to global warming will have essentially no impact on the earth’s temperature and primarily involve taking money from the more affluent countries and giving it to the poorer countries.
    Regards,
    Dennis

  • guest549d27
    guest549d27 said 2 months Edit Delete

    Guitar man ps unimpressed with the denialists biggest gun:

    Richard S. Lindzen!

    Give me a break!

    They better not let him have any say in the global warming report!!!!



    And for good reason. In 2001, Lindzen and others told the new Bush Administration the last IPCC report was wrong and didn't represent the latest or the best science. To investigate that claim, the National Academies of Science assigned a panel to the review the IPCC work. Lindzen was on the panel and co-wrote the report. The NAS report states:



    'The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. … Despite the uncertainties, there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years' (Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, p.3).



    Lindzen was also part of a 1970s group that wrote the Charney Report. It provided the first top-level warning to government officials of the threats that loomed ahead.



    Lindzen isn't a climatologist, he is a dynamicist. He studies how the wind blows.

    Talking slow and in a deep voice like Lindzen are good qualifications for documentary narrators. They don't make him convincing to his science colleagues.



    It's only natural for people to be angry when others try to fool them. This has benefits, like strengthening social bonds and promoting good behavior and honesty. Let me suggest it might be prudent to reserve some of yours for the decades ahead, I think you will find a new use for it. Your audiences certainly will.

  • DennisBussey
    DennisBussey said 4 months Edit Delete

    Thank you Guitar Fingers for reviewing my presentation and related comments. I am particularly grateful for the opportunity you have provided for me to further comment on the concept of consensus of scientists.

    When I first began researching global warming over a year ago I too accepted that there must be a consensus of scientists believing: 1. Man is the primary cause of global warming 2. Those who disagreed were ill-informed or unduly biased and 3. Mankind can reasonably correct the problem. I accepted this because that position was repeated again and again in the news media. It was further confirmed by representatives of important sounding organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists.

    When I occasionally ran across a dissenting article I wondered if this was part of the wacky fringe the mainstream media referred to. I decided to investigate. What I learned was both surprising and disturbing.

    There are certainly a myriad of nuisances and points of view on the incredible complex subject of global warming. In fact, I would be suspicious of any two people who agree on every particular of the science. There are two things however for which I can say with certainty that there is no doubt. That is that there is no consensus of scientists on the subject, and any collective descriptive of dissenters as corrupt fools is itself foolish. There are many examples.

    Consider the following:
    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. 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.
    These stories are chronicled in a new book The Deniers by Lawrence Solomon, published April 2008. As stated in the Amazon review, “The scientists who dispute the alarmists’ doomsday scenarios have far more credibility than those who support alarmist theories. These men hold top positions at the most prestigious scientific institutes in the world. Their work is cited and acclaimed throughout the scientific community. This is the one book that proves the science is not settled. The scientists profiled are too eminent and their research too devastating to allow simplistic views of global warming to survive.”
    Next consider this petition:
    'We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.'
    32,000 scientists, over 9,000 of whom hold PhDs, have now signed. Refer to http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archiv... for details on this.
    Guitar Fingers, I encourage you to review again my presentation attached comments on “consensus” made some four months ago. Those combined with those set forth above I believe provide persuasive evidence that the often repeated consensus of scientists on global warming simply is not true.

  • Guitar_Fingers
    Guitar_Fingers said 4 months Edit Delete

    Richard S. Lindzen!
    Give me a break!
    They better not let him have any say in the global warming report!!!!
    Get over it!
    The consensus is in and they are listening to any George C. Marshall Institute floozies!

  • peacediscovery
    peacediscovery said 7 months Edit Delete

    nice presentation...please see my slideshow here http://www.slideshare.net/peacediscovery/peace-283565

  • Lenze
  • DennisBussey
    DennisBussey said 9 months Edit Delete

    Hello guestd78344.
    Thank you for taking the time to review my presentation and for commenting. Allow me to respond.
    First the term “Alarmist”
    Advocates of man-made global warming frequently predict climatic Armageddon including heat deaths, more intense hurricanes, more malaria, extreme ocean levels rise, catastrophic floods, droughts, extinction of polar bears, starvation, poverty and chaos.
    It is reasonable to say these things would be alarming, and it is therefore fair to label its disciples as alarmist.

    Next let’s deal with the “consensus”.
    The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines 'consensus” as '1) general agreement: unanimity; 2) group solidarity in sentiment and belief.”
    There is no unanimity or even general agreement among scientists that mankind is causing global warming. I gave many examples of this in my presentation.
    A prominent example is MIT meteorology professor Richard S. Lindzen who was named in the National Academy of Sciences study purporting to 'prove” global warming. He in fact disagrees with most claims about global warming.
    Commentator Thomas Sowell has pointed out, 'as the [National Academy of Sciences] report itself stated clearly, these scientists not only did not write the report, they didn’t even see it before it was published – and were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release.” (Thomas Sowell, 'Global Hot Air,” Jewish World Review, 6-21-01.)
    Christopher Horner, Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute asks. “How can a major government think tank, such as the National Academy of Sciences, claim there is now 'consensus on global warming” when the very people supposedly making up that consensus have never even read or necessarily endorsed their studies?” His shocking answer is that the entire modern process of 'scientific consensus building” repeatedly cited by the establishment press is a fraud concocted by political hacks, to bamboozle the public and unsympathetic politicians - while stifling dissenting scientific voices.
    Civil Defense Perspectives newsletter describes the process: 'Consensus building is carried out by trained ‘facilitators’ who ask questions designed to elicit silence or to force individuals who might be opposed to a policy to identify themselves.
    'If the facilitator is unable to quiet objections, the process can be delayed until troublemakers are replaced by more cooperative individuals.
    'The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared that a consensus by 2,000 scientists had determined that global warming was caused by human activity. The consensus stands in the public perception despite the vocal disagreement of thousands of scientists. (You may recall again, guestd78344, I made this point in my presentation)
    'Head-to-head debate is increasingly being characterized as ‘childish’ and as leading to ‘gridlock.’ It is frequently being replaced with the consensus process, which predetermines outcome and removes accountability to the people affected by it.” ('Consensus v. Agreement,” Civil Defense Perspectives, July 1997.)
    According to the free-market environment organization PERC (Political Economy Research Center) in Bozeman, Mont., a majority of climate scientists have never endorsed the notion that human activity is causing global warming or that warming is a crisis that requires immediate urgent action, such as that demanded by the Kyoto Protocol.
    That is not to say there is no consensus among climate scientists. There are a few areas of general agreement regarding climate change, for example that climate is always changing and continues to do so. There is a consensus that until 1999, the planet was warming. Since then, as noted in my presentation, it has not been warming. There is agreement that industrial activity is adding to the levels of “greenhouse gasses” in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gasses, including CO2, can have a net warming effect, all else being equal. Beyond that, there is no consensus.
    It is important to note guestd78344, there consensus on a critical point. That is, the Kyoto Protocol will do nothing to significantly slow global warming.
    Consensus claims about the actual scientific understanding of climate either are wistful thinking cut from whole cloth, or mischaracterizations of scientific research incorporated into reports by the United Nations IPCC or the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
    Dr. Julian Morris of the UK-based International Policy Network notes that “The IPCC is not a scientific body: it is a consensus-oriented political body.” You can see for yourself guestd78344, from IPCC’s own website www.ipcc.ch that their choice of authors and reviewers as well as the final review of its reports is conducted by government officials, who may or may not be scientists.
    Dr. Morris continues, “In any case, science is a process that involves continuously questioning and challenging what we know in order to improve our understanding of the world.”
    It is also instructive to consider the work of veteran Canadian journalist Terence Corcoran who has extensively documented the travails of science under siege of global warming alarmists. Here are some of his examples of the anti-science of the alarmists:
    “Under the new authoritarian science based on consensus, science doesn’t matter much anymore. If a polar Bear biologist says polar bears are thriving, thus disproving a popular climate change theory, the expert is dismissed as being out of the consensus. If studies show solar fluctuations rather than carbon emissions may be causing climate change, these are dammed as relics of the old scientific method. If ice caps are not all melting, with some even growing even larger, the evidence is ridiculed and condemned. We have a consensus, and this contradictory science is just noise from the skeptical fringe.”
    You will recall I provided in my presentation compelling scientific evidence demonstrating each of the three points noted by Mr. Corcoran.
    So as I have explained, guest 78344, while the concept of consensus may have persuasive appeal to the unthinking masses, it just doesn’t provide a reasonable argument under the scrutiny of serious thinkers. Most unfortunately for mankind, with respect to global warming, the misguided concept of scientific consensus, often by non-scientists with political agendas, is replacing the time honored process of honest debate with the best science prevailing.
    Finally, let’s deal with your contention that my presentation is “unscientific” and “baseless.”
    I stand by the scientific validity of every detail, quote, reference, chart, graph, and photograph in my 132 slide presentation. Nothing was made up or fudged in any way. I invite you to attempt to find any flaws. I provided the complete presentation as a handout to all who cared to review it. Also included was an eleven page addendum detailing flaws in An Inconvenient Truth and in Al Gore’s December 2007 speech to the United Nations IPCC.
    Conversely, you provide no examples and no scientific evidence, only your declaration that my presentation is “unscientific” and “baseless.”
    It therefore is not clear, just what part of my presentation you have judged so harshly.
    I would appreciate if you would identify what the problems are so I can address them.
    I can understand, guest 78344, it must be difficult for you to accept in one gulp that the foundation of what you have been told about global warming is wrong. Perhaps you can take solace in the words of the former Harvard dean Henry Rosovsky, “Never underestimate the difficulty of changing false beliefs by facts.”
    Dennis Bussey
    PS: I viewed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI and can understand how the uninformed could find it appealing. It would seem logical, given the assumptions he presented, to follow the young man’s conclusion that the best option is to choose “solving” the global warming problem vs. the others. For those who have even a basic understanding of the science of global warming, however, the argument quickly falls apart. The obvious problem with the video is that mankind has no ability to solve the problem even if it tried. You may recall I made this argument in my power point presentation. As a reminder, there is a consensus that the Kyoto Protocol will do nothing to significantly slow global warming. If you have any doubts about this, I suggest you check it out with those “real scientists from UCSD or SDSU.”

  • guestd78344
    guestd78344 said 9 months Edit Delete

    I suggest skeptics like Dennis Bussey should do a little more research before throwing around labels like 'alarmist' and discounting some of the most respected scientists and research groups in the world. Groups like the US National Academy of Sciences (and the academies of sciences for every single industrialized nation on Earth), US National Research Council, American Meteorological Society, American Chemical Society, Geological Society of America, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, United Nations, countless universities, and I could keep going on and on.



    Bussey is akin to the same people who believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution. It's quite sad that the North County chapter of SDWAC would give a platform to such an unscientific viewpoint. Global climate change is an extremely difficult topic to understand and they should have included real scientists from UCSD or SDSU to explain why Bussey's claim is baseless.





    Here is a simple and easy to understand video that might help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

Add a comment If you have a SlideShare account, login to comment; otherwise comment as a guest.
    SlideShare is now available on LinkedIn. Add it to your LinkedIn profile.

    Global Warming Presentation

    From DennisBussey, 9 months ago Add as contact

    The great global warming trail. Will you be an alarmist or a skeptic?

    11989 views | 8 comments | 6 favorites | 962 downloads | 1 embeds (Stats)

    Embed in your blog options close
    Embed (wordpress.com) Exclude related slideshows Embed in your blog

    More Info

    This slideshow is Public
    Total Views: 11989 on Slideshare: 11986 from embeds: 3
    Most viewed embeds (Top 5): More
    Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate

    Flag as inappropriate

    Select your reason for flagging this slideshow as inappropriate.

    If needed, use the feedback form to let us know more details.

    Slideshow Transcript

    1. Slide 1: The great global warming trial. Will you be an alarmist or a skeptic?
    2. Slide 2: GLOBAL WARMING ALARM!
    3. Slide 3: Global warming is a natural phenomenon, and there is nothing realistic that mankind can do to significantly change the global temperature.
    4. Slide 4:  An established belief thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.  Examples include:  Judaism, Christianity and Islam  Belief that 9/11 was a conspiracy  Beat Army!  Global warming
    5. Slide 5:  There is no discussion, no alternative science, or no weather experts that advocates of man made climate change creating imminent peril for the planet will listen to. ”The debate is over!”
    6. Slide 6: The media The schools  The politicians  The organizations  Demonizing the unbelievers  An Inconvenient Truth
    7. Slide 7: When asked why his 60 Minutes does not include the views of global warming skeptics:  “It would be difficult to find a scientist worth his salt who would suggest this wasn't happening. It would probably be someone whose grant has been funded by someone who finds reducing fossil fuel emissions detrimental to their own interests. There comes a point in journalism where striving for balance becomes irresponsible.\"  60 Minutes reporter Scott Pelley,
    8. Slide 8: Media Research Center
    9. Slide 9:  “Polar bears starting to turn up drowned and at some point will become extinct due to global warming.”  Time magazine
    10. Slide 10: “The world population of polar bears has mushroomed from 5,000 in the 1960s to about 25,000 today. The 2 of the 20 subgroups that are declining live in regions in which the temperatures have been dropping over the past 50 years. The 18 subgroups that have seen an increase live in areas that have been getting warmer. It’s just silly to predict the demise of polar bears based on media-assisted hysteria. The future of polar bears is secure.”  Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Polar Bear Biologist, Department of the Environment, Government of Nunavut , Igloolik , Nunavut , Canada  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ”Clearly, any warming that has occurred has not had an adverse impact on polar bear numbers. This is true of the polar bear populations in Alaska, Canada, Russia, and other nations.” Alaska Department of Fish and Game
    11. Slide 11:  The New York Times reported Dec, 23, 2007 “As Earth Warms Up, Tropical Virus Moves to Italy. This is a real issue. Now, today. It is not something a crazy environmentalist is warning about.”  The New York Times did not report:  “Italy’s tropical virus is a result of modern transportation, not global warming.”  Professor Paul Reiter Director of the Insects and Infectious Diseases Unit of the Institute Pasteur, Paris.
    12. Slide 12:  -
    13. Slide 13: Humans are heating the earth. Devastation if we don’t change the way we live.  Polar caps will melt  Ocean levels will rise.  Droughts, floods, and chaos. Malaria will kill many people. Extinction of plants and animals.
    14. Slide 14: “Human-caused global warming is a certainty.”
    15. Slide 15:  General Electric will spend $1.5 billion a year to research the emission of greenhouse gases. United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, National Association of Evangelicals and National Council of Churches, declare: \"Global warming is a universal moral challenge,\"
    16. Slide 16:  October 2007 Newsletter summarized a recent lecture, “The Climate Crisis: Answer the Call”. Invited members to individually work in promoting public awareness.  Repeated these words from the lecture: preserve our planet for our children catastrophic floods disappearing glaciers 2005 was the hottest year to date less than 10 years to stabilize the situation
    17. Slide 17:  Greenland’s Warming Island  “If global warming needed a poster child, here it is.”  Dennis Schmitt, 2005 discoverer of Warming Island and tour operator with Betchart Expeditions. 
    18. Slide 18:  “‘Climate change denier’ – is used to mark out certain people as immoral, untrustworthy. It is deeply pejorative. It is a phrase designedly reminiscent of the idea of Holocaust denial.”  Richard D North, author of Rich is Beautiful: A Very Personal Defense of Mass Affluence
    19. Slide 19:  “Scientist who dissent from the alarmist have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse.  There are peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest.”  Young scientists today who dare to stray from the alarmist dogma of man-made global warming often have to choose between silence through intimidation or jeopardizing their employment.  Only the most senior scientists today can withstand up against the alarmist gale and defy the climate scientist, advocates and policymakers.”  Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Soan Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT
    20. Slide 20:  “We should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.” David Roberts, staff writer for Grist journal
    21. Slide 21:  “Intellectually Exhilarating! An Inconvenient Truth is a necessary film”  A.O. Scott, New York Times “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it” Upton Sinclair “What changed in the US with Hurricane Katrina is we entered a period of consequences.” Al Gore
    22. Slide 22:  “You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to.”  Roger Ebert, movie critic
    23. Slide 23:  Examining the science  1. Man made CO2 causes it.  2. Computer models predict it will get much worse.
    24. Slide 24: “It is the scientific basis for the whole anxiety we have about climate change caused by human beings.\" carbon dioxide graph by Robert Simmon, NASA temperature graph from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
    25. Slide 25: United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
    26. Slide 26:  “Skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”  Thomas Huxley, 19th century English biologist.
    27. Slide 27:  Were the temperature change which has taken place during the 20th and 21st centuries to occur in this room during my talk, most of the people in this room would be unaware of it.  How can a one degree F increase in temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into claims about future catastrophes? Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Soan Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT
    28. Slide 28:  US surface temperatures have increased about 0.5 degrees C (0.9 degrees F) per century.  Highest temperature in history was 136 degrees F in Libya, 1922  Lowest temperature in history was -128 degrees F in Antarctica, 1983  Max to min was 264 degrees F  US National Climatic Data Center 100 C = 212 F
    29. Slide 29:  The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show no overall change since 1999.  That makes no sense by the hypothesis of global warming driven mainly by CO2, because the amount of CO2 in the air has gone on increasing.” Nigel Calder, editor of New Scientist Journal
    30. Slide 30:  Keigwin, L. D. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
    31. Slide 31: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN
    32. Slide 32: Keigwin, L. D. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA and MIT
    33. Slide 33: “So great are the magnitudes of these reservoirs, the rates of exchange between them, and the uncertainties of the estimated quantities that the sources of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 have not been determined with certainty.” T.V. Segalstad, University of Oslo, Norway
    34. Slide 34:  How does CO2 effect temperature? “The journey to the answer is immensely complex and no one can say absolutely what the effect is. The greenhouse effect amplifies solar warming of the earth. Greenhouse gases such as H2O, CO2, and CH4 in the Earth’s atmosphere, through combined convective readjustments and the radiative blanketing effect, essentially decrease the net escape of terrestrial thermal infrared radiation. Increasing CO2, therefore, effectively increases radiative energy input to the Earth’s atmosphere. The path of this radiative input is complex. It is redistributed, both vertically and horizontally, by various physical processes, including advection, convection, and diffusion in the atmosphere and ocean. When an increase in CO2 increases the radiative input to the atmosphere, how and in which direction does the atmosphere respond?  The IPCC uses a worst-case-scenario hypothesis. Their theory projects a dramatic temperature increase. Skeptics use experimental evidence with real world data. They conclude that while CO2 has increased substantially, its effect on temperature has not been experimentally detected.” Roy Spencer, Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA ‘s Marshall Space Flight Center
    35. Slide 35:  Cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world.  Demonstrated the theory in his laboratory in 2006. Henrik Svensmark , Director of Danish National Space Center
    36. Slide 36:  If the atmosphere’s CO2 content doubled, its effect would be cancelled out if the cloud cover expanded by 1%.  H. E. Landsberg Director of the Taunus Observatory of Geophysics and Meteorology, University of Frankfurt, Germany \"All calculations about the greenhouse effect and global warming assume cloud cover isn't changing. But the Danish scientists have demonstrated cloud cover does change. The question of cloud cover, is the most critical unanswered question in the entire global warming debate.”  Richard Muller, University of California, Berkeley
    37. Slide 37: The total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28%.” Dr. Wallace Broecker, Columbia University  % of All Greenhouse Gases % Natural % man made  Water vapor 95.000%   94.999% 0.001%   Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618%   3.502% 0.117%   Methane (CH4) 0.360%   0.294% 0.066%   Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950%   0.903% 0.047%   Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.072%   0.025% 0.047%   Total 100.00%   99.72 0.28% 
    38. Slide 40: “Climate models have yet to produce reliable results. An analysis of 22 climate models found their predictions at odds with actual warming over the past 30 years.” David H. Douglass, Climate scientist, University of Rochester  \"The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic.  Hendrik Tennekes, Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute  “Models used by the IPCC are incoherent and invalid.”  Antonio Zichichi, President of the World Federation of Scientists
    39. Slide 41:  When discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. Therefore, the multitude of empirical observations favors celestial phenomena over the IPCC theoretical model. Jan Veizer, University of Ottawa “
    40. Slide 42:  “The Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly” Dr Sami Solanki, director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany
    41. Slide 43:  “Some parts of Jupiter are now as much as six degrees Celsius warmer than just a few years ago.” Imke de Pater and Philip Marcus of University of California, Berkeley
    42. Slide 44:  Carbon dioxide \"ice caps\" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions “A simultaneous rising in temperature on both Mars and Earth suggest that climate change is indeed a natural phenomenon as opposed to being man- made. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia
    43. Slide 45:  \"At least since 1989, Triton, Neptune’s largest moon, has been undergoing a period of global warming,\" Astronomer James Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    44. Slide 46:  Storms on Saturn indicate a climate change occurring on that planet. NASA
    45. Slide 47:  Pluto is undergoing global warming. Over the past 14 years, the average surface temperature increased about 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Astronomer James Elliot
    46. Slide 48:  U.S. National Climatic Data Center
    47. Slide 50: “THE DEBATE IS OVER” A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE  \"The scientific debate is over, We're done. Scientific skeptics of  2004 - 2007 man-made catastrophic global  Only 7% of all published scientists warming are bought and paid for explicitly endorse global warming by the fossil fuel industry.” theory. Miles O'Brien ,CNN's chief technology and environment correspondent,  Science researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, london July 23, 2007
    48. Slide 51: UNITED NATIONS A CLOSER LOOK  “The United Nations IPCC Summary for Policymakers is the “It is very highly likely that voice of hundreds or even greenhouse gas forcing has been thousands of the world's top the dominant cause of the scientists.” observed global warming over the last 50 years. “  Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter.
    49. Slide 52:  An open letter to the United Nations Secretary-General. December 18, 2007. ( “Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.” Endorsed by more than 100 prominent international scientists such as:  Dr. Antonio Zichichi, President of the World Federation of Scientists  Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the \"Father of Meteorology“, University Of Wisconsin
    50. Slide 53:  \"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere.“ Signed by over 19,000 American scientists. Qualification to be a signatory requires that the individual have a university degree in physical science, either BS, MS, or PhD.  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  \" ‘Man-made climate change is real.” and “Climate catastrophe is looming.” Neither of these fears is justified.“ 2006 letter to Canada's Prime Minister signed by 60 experts in climate-related fields  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  \"We cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that predicts climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.“- 2005 Leipzig Petition signed by about 80 prominent scientists and academics
    51. Slide 54:  Global warming is a false myth, and every serious person and scientist says so. The United Nations panel IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.”  “Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice”  President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus
    52. Slide 55:  “ Politicians and journalists show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.”   \"Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees.”  “Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”  Nigel Calder, author of Einstein’s Universe and former editor of New Scientist
    53. Slide 56: “IPCC has changed the nature of scientific investigation  from: Observation---interpretation---conclusion to: Idea---modeling to prove the idea---lobbying to endorse the scenario”  Nils-Axel Morner, President International Commission on Sea-Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, Stockholm University, Sweden
    54. Slide 57: ALARMISTS SAY SKEPTIC SAYS  Antarctica represents the greatest “Due to natural currents” threat to the globe from global Antarctic, ice is growing, not warming, bar none. shrinking. That makes Antarctica a sink, not a source, of ocean water. Duncan Wingham, Director of the Centre for Polar Observation , London
    55. Slide 58: ALARMIST SAY SKEPTICS SAY  Proof that human activities are  “It’s the wind” propelling a slide toward climate calamity.  “Polar wind patterns changed and blew sea ice further south to warmer waters than it normally would”  Arctic = 3 million square KM- shrinking Antarctic = 16 million square KM growing  Net change in ice area +5% Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena
    56. Slide 59: ALARMIST SAY SKEPTICS SAY  “Global warming may raise the oceans 23  “IPCC predicts one foot“ feet, submerging cities from Sidney to New York.” Jonathan Gregory, climate scientist at the University of Reading in England “I am a sea-level specialist. There are many good sea-level people in the world, but let’s put it this way: There’s no one who’s beaten me.” “The rise rate is not more than  4.3 inches per century”  Nils-Axel Morner, President International Commission on Sea-Level Changes Stockholm University, Sweden
    57. Slide 60:  “It is vital that the international community base its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.” Pope Benedict XVI
    58. Slide 61:  An England court ruled it is “alarmists and exaggerated”.  scientific errors - Claims Polar bears died from global warming. Whereby the evidence is that only 4 bears downed because of a storm. - Suggests Sea level would rise 20 feet in the near future. Whereby evidence is that that could occur only over thousands of years. - Contrary to the film, there is no evidence melting snow on Mount Kilimanjaro is melting because of global warming - Claims Antarctic ice is melting. Evidence is that it is increasing. - Suggests Hurricane Katrina is related to global warming. Evidence is that is not possible.
    59. Slide 62:  “Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth is One-Sided (26), Misleading (15) , ,Exaggerated (8), Speculative (26), and Wrong (18) ”. Marlo Lewis, Jr.  Marlo Lewis, Jr. The Competitive Enterprise Institute Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley  Twelve errors and exaggerations in Al Gore’s presentation at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali, 4 Dec. 2007 Christopher Walter Monckton
    60. Slide 63:  Gore emphasized heat-related deaths.  By 2050, heat will claim 400,000 more lives, but 1.8 million fewer will die because of cold. Global warming will actually save lives.  Bjorn Lomborg, Danish statistician
    61. Slide 64:  \"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.“  Bob Carter, Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Australia
    62. Slide 66:  \" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, the Kyoto Protocol would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures.” Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist, University of Virginia, former director of the US Weather Satellite Service
    63. Slide 67:  “It is alleged that global warming will cause heat deaths, increase the sea level, make hurricanes more intense, increase flooding, give rise to more malaria, starvation and poverty. And don’t forget about the polar bears. The problem with this analysis is that it overlooks a simple but important fact. Cutting CO2 - even substantially - will not matter much with any of the above problems.”  Bjorn Lomborg Danish statistician and author
    64. Slide 68:  “If the entire world were to adopt a 43-mpg fuel economy standard, the net effect would reduce projected warming an amount so minuscule as to be undetectable.”  Dr. John R. Christy, Director, Earth System Science Center, National Space Science and Technology Center, Huntsville, Alabama “The total de-industrialization of the United States might not be enough” FreedomWorks “There is no known, feasible policy that can stop or even slow climate changes.\" Patrick J. Michaels , Research professor of environmental studies at the University of Virginia. Pat Michaels may be the most popular lecturer in the nation on the subject of global warming.
    65. Slide 69: THE PLAN Reduce emissions 50 percent below our 1990 levels by 2050.    THE PAYOFF  Reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 0.0015 percent in year 2100  THE PRICE  Electricity prices to rise by 40 percent  Reduced standard of living totaling $3,000 per year per household.  57,000 people losing their jobs  2.3 percent reduction in the state's annual gross state product supported by studies of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Yale University, the Congressional Budget Office, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \"We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.“ Former President Bill Clinton, January 31, 2008
    66. Slide 70: Congressional Budget Office report of April 25, 2007 informs:  1. Lieberman-McCain bill imposes more than $3,500 on families each year.  2. Most of the cost would be borne by consumers, through higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear the largest burden.  3. Kyoto proponents concede that it would have virtually no impact on the climate.
    67. Slide 71:  “Port Commissioners of Washington State, solely on the basis of Gore’s claims, are proposing to increase the height of the sea-walls by 20 feet. Real economic and environmental harm is now being caused “ Christopher Monckton Sweden to Study Belching Cows. Associated Press, January, 21, 2008
    68. Slide 72:  Thanks to global warming, German sun worshippers may enjoy a cocktail on a Baltic Sea beach in early May. Olaf Stamp, German journalist
    69. Slide 73:  Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D., Noah E. Robinson, Ph.D., Willie Soon, Ph.D.
    70. Slide 74:  “Preserving the environment  Conserving energy  Providing for clean air and water  Developing alternative forms of power  Reducing our dependence on oil  Each stands on it’s own benefits. Let us join together to make them happen.  While parts of fighting global warming have benefits that overlap these, let us not delude ourselves into believing we can change the world’s temperature.” Dennis Bussey, cow milking champion
    71. Slide 75:  All the planets have experienced global warming, and the earth is no longer warming.  Consensus of scientists is a myth. Many reputable scientists believe mankind is not causing global warming.  There is nothing realistic that mankind can do to significantly change the global temperature. Fighting global warming would have a huge price and virtually no impact.
    72. Slide 76:  \"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.“  Nobel Prize winning French novelist Andre Gide
    73. Slide 78:  “Al Gores movie was justly praised as a proper representation of the science of global warming.”  Q1: What about all the planets that are experiencing global warming?  A1: It’s a coincidence  Q2: How can we have global warming if the earth hasn’t warmed for the last 8 years?  A2: That’s a tough one. The satellite data was fine when it indicated the earth was warming. My theory is the satellite machinery has been broken the last 8 years.
    74. Slide 79:  Q3: From UCSD student. I want to save the planet, but how can I get excited about immediately doubling the price of gas as you say is necessary?  A3: President Kennedy inspired the nation to go to the moon. In our youths we marched on campuses and stopped the war in Vietnam. It is now your turn to take a stand.  The older generation cannot be trusted. You, the youth, must take the initiative to save the world.  Q4: Why has global warming become political?  A4: Democrats are serious about science and are genuinely concerned about doing good.  Conversely, Republicans are greedy and corrupted by big business and the fossil fuel industry.
    75. Slide 80:  A 5% CO2 change correlates with a one degree Celsius temperature rise as 650,000-year ice core records reveal.  From 1900 to 2006, the world CO2 increased 30%.  Alarmist theory is that CO2 is driving up the temperature at a linear rate.  5% x 6 = 30% CO2 increase  1 degree C x 6 = 6 degree C temperature increase In fact the increase was .5 degrees C between 1900 and 2006.  “650,000-years of empirical evidence therefore invalidates the hypothesis of human-caused global warming.”  David Schneider, National Center for Atmospheric Research
    76. Slide 81:  U.S. Average Household Energy Consumption: Annual household electricity use: 10,660 kwh / household Annual household emissions: 22,880 pounds CO2 / year Car emissions factor: 11,500 pounds CO2 / car / year  Sources: Census Bureau, Energy Information Administration, Environmental Protection Agency
    77. Slide 82:  \"There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences.\" William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology  “Carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it“.  \"There is new work that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation.”   . Ian Plimer, The University of Adelaide  “There is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming. geologist, Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook in Australia
    78. Slide 83:  Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute:  \"CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.”
    79. Slide 84:  Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorological Weather Center  “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming.  The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,”
    80. Slide 85:  The argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up. Furthermore, the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.“ Timothy F. Ball, Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg  \"That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapor response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models.”  Ian Clark, hydro geologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa Global warming is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole“ Tad Murty, oceanographer, University of Ottawa  There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature. 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. Tim Patterson, climatologist and Professor of Geology, Carleton University, Canada
    81. Slide 86:  IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a PhD meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling:  “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.” 
    82. Slide 87:  Czech-born climatologist Dr. George Kukla:  “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid.”
    83. Slide 88:  “Cosmic rays have more effect on the climate than manmade CO2. During the last 100 years cosmic rays became scarcer because unusually vigorous action by the Sun batted away many of them. Fewer cosmic rays meant fewer clouds--and a warmer world.” “Global temperature has not risen since 1999.” Henrik Svensmark, director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research, at the Danish Space Research Institute Center
    84. Slide 89:  Sadly, the idea of a sustainable climate is an oxymoron. The fact that we have rediscovered climate change at the turn of the Millennium tells us more about ourselves, and about our devices and desires, than about climate. Opponents of global warming are often snidely referred to as 'climate change deniers'; precisely the opposite is true. Those who question the myth of global warming are passionate believers in climate change - it is the global warmers who deny that climate change is the norm.“Philip Stott, professor emeritus, University of London  Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”
    85. Slide 90:  Dr. Boris Winterhalter, Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland:  “The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases.\"
    86. Slide 91:  Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, Director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon    “Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless acceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!”
    87. Slide 92:  Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany:  “I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,”  
    88. Slide 93:  B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India:  “We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.”
    89. Slide 94:  Dr. Antonio Zichichi, President of the World Federation of Scientists who has published over 800 scientific papers:  “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.\"
    90. Slide 95:  Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem:  “Temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!”
    91. Slide 96:  Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute  “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting entirely without merit,”  “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached.\"
    92. Slide 97:  \"The two main 'scientific' claims of the IPCC are the claim that 'the globe is warming' and 'Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible'. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.”  The main purpose of the IPCC ‘Summary for Policymakers’ report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.” Gray has called for the IPCC to be abolished, claiming it is \"fundamentally corrupt”  Vincent R. Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel , founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
    93. Slide 98:  “There has been no statistically-significant increase in mean global surface temperature since the 2001. “Global warming” has stopped.”  Question to the IPCC lead author. “ As the world temperature has failed to rise now for seven years, how many more years of the same would convince him to give up the pretence that the IPCC’s predictions have any connection with reality?” Answer came there none. Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, Auckland, New Zealand, at 2007 Bail conference
    94. Slide 99:  Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC:  “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”
    95. Slide 100:  \"Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation.” “Global cooling could develop on Earth in 50 years and have serious consequences before it is replaced by a period of warming in the early 22nd century.”  Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Chief of the Space Exploration Department of the Central Astronomical Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences  Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences:  “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,”
    96. Slide 101:  Dr. Kelvin Kemm, South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation:  “The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.”
    97. Slide 102: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country: “It's very interesting to study climate change, but there's no need to be worried”
    98. Slide 103:  Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University: “By relying on statistical reconstruction of the last 1000 years, using only the temperature patterns of the last 140 years instead of actual temperature readings, the IPCC report and Summary missed both a major cooling period as well as a significant warming trend during that millennium.\" “Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.” 
    99. Slide 104:  “The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.  This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities.  Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.  The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in underdeveloped countries.  Frederick Seitz, Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., President Emeritus, Rockefeller University
    100. Slide 105:  David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University:  “The hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this. The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
    101. Slide 106:  Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists:  “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.”
    102. Slide 107:  Forecasts of dramatic and deleterious global warming are in error because of the very modest climate changes that had been observed. Climate change would be inordinately directed into the winter and night, rather than the summer, and that this could be benign or even beneficial.  Patrick J. Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, and Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at Cato Institute  “Neither the number nor intensity of storms is increasing\" Jochem Marotzke, director of the Hamburg-based Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, one of the world's leading climate research centers.  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports Antarctic sea ice in 2007 reached its largest extent in recorded history. “While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere [Antarctica] has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979,”  Joe D’Aleo, executive director of the, International Climate and Environmental, Change Assessment Project.
    103. Slide 108:  “The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.” David Douglas, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester  “Global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2.” David Douglas, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester   “Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential. Global warming is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people. So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more” William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado state University
    104. Slide 109:  “The recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air.“ Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics  \"It’s absurd. 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.” Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin  “Human-induced climatic changes are negligible.” George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California  There's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the \" United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
    105. Slide 110:  “…we shall see a stabilization of frequencies for a while, followed by potentially another upward swing if global warming continues unabated.”  Published in the Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society, 2007  Greg Holland, Director of Mesoscale and Microscope Meteorology Division, Boulder Colorado
    106. Slide 111: “There should be no rise whatsoever in potential intensity or frequency of hurricanes due to global warming for the next 150 years.” Published 2007 in Nature. Gabriel Vecchi, Research Scientist Brian J. Soden, University of Miami National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration
    107. Slide 112:  How the media reported it: Philosophical Transactions is an obscure scientific publication. 79 news articles reporting the alarmists position followed.  Nature journal is the leading scientific journal in the world. 3 news articles reporting the skeptics position followed.
    108. Slide 113:  Chances are 79 to 3 that you heard something like this: ABC  “Did Global Warming Boost Katrina's Fury? Experts: Rise in Temperature Added More Water to Storm's Surge”  CBS evening news  \"Global Warming Generating Short and Long-Term Drastic and Dangerous Weather Changes.“  MSNBC  “Study finds strong warming tie to hurricanes. Half of Atlantic temperature increase in 2005 linked to global temperature rise”
    109. Slide 114:  Reporting on Gore’s partnership with Virgin Airlines founder Richard Branson, suggesting the two were “They are teaming up to save the planet. Is Al Gore a prophet?\" CBS’s Harry Smith, February 9, 2007  “Al Gore is an environmental evangelist....now considered ahead of his time. “CBS’s Gloria Borger, March 2007  \"He’s our modern day Paul Revere.