Thursday, May 22, 2008

Global warming: at least 31,000 short of consensus

The Star Tribune reported that on Monday, "the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine appeared before the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., and announced that it has the signatures of more than 31,000 scientists...who agree that the human impact on global warming is overblown:"
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto ... 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 gases 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.

Among the notable Minnesotans who signed the petition: WCCO-TV meteorologist Mike Fairbourne. Fairbourne had some courage to publicly declare skepticism about global warming, since his colleagues, anchorman Don Shelby and fellow meteorologist Paul Douglas, are noted believers in man-made global warming/climate change.

The Global Warming Petition Project is much more than just another Internet petition drive. It's a serious rebuttal to the junk science of global warming. The web site includes a summary of peer-reviewed research on the science of so-called global warming.

It's time to take a step back from flawed computer models, the gospel of global warming and its prophet Al Gore and his Hollywood disciples, and the very real economic damage being caused in the name of this myth.


Dennis said...

But, but...

I just saw yesterday on C-SPAN, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse preach at the oil execs to stop funding the few fringe scientists who deny the religion! He stated that as the husband of a micro-biologist, he's familiar with the "real" science.

A couple execs dared to state that they don't fund such enterprises, they were diplomatically called liars.

I have to quit watching C-Span at night. It keeps me awake!

miggs said...

I believe in the notion that man is contributing to global warming. However, I think there's something critical that's missing from this debate: technology exists RIGHT NOW to reduce greenhouse emissions while CUTTING energy costs. I'm associated with Recycled Energy Development (, a company that turns manufacturers' excess heat into electricity and steam. The result is much greater efficiency, and thus lower costs and pollution simultaneously. EPA and DoE estimates suggest we could cut emissions by 20% this way -- all while cutting costs. So, I think that a lot of the opposition to action on global warming would fade if people understood that we don't have to wreck the economy to do it. The only reason more isn't being done is that utilities receive monopoly protections -- thus making it hard for more efficient alternatives to emerge.

TitanicExplorer said...

"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."

That statement above could never be proven.

I argue the exact opposite, that limiting greenhouse gases would enhance technological development and by reducing the output of autoexhaust would provide cleaner air, specifically the air we breath when standing still in traffic.

31,000 scientists signed a paper saying they agree to an unproveable hypothesis.

Someone should check the quality of their air supply, they might be under a bypass or stuck in the tunnel.