Half Truths - Global Warming/Climate Change/Different Weather/Increasing or Decreasing Temperature

Or...whatever you want to call it. See, the difference between a conservative and a liberal is simple. Conservatives follow a story forever and follow up on it: Liberals take the "facts" they like, stick with them, never follow up, never question themselves or their sources, and when challenged insist everyone else is stupid. In the case of global warming, it's called a "consensus" and if you are not a part of that supposed "large" crowd, you are obviously a denier!


Nowadays the media seems to have slowly and quietly backed away from this issue and it probably has to do with all the flaws that have come to light concerning the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and their report are actually more interested in agenda rather than science.

You see, the panel admits that they are no longer interested in science. They are much more concerned about the demographics that make up their panel and that includes making sure enough women are being used for providing input. True scientific research should be concerned with creating panels that are made up of the best scientists available. If demographics like race, creed, and/or sex are considered important, should the panel not also consider a person's political bias as a means to measure who can sit on their panel as well?

'Grey' literature, which led to the "Glaciergate" scandal of 2010 when it was revealed that the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are losing ice (gone by 2035!) was stated as fact even though it was not based on evidence, will no longer be a problem for  the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 

Because they have declared that grey literature will no longer be grey - any information they choose to use will be considered peer reviewed just by being posted on the Internet by the IPCC. 

 The article continues...

In further revising history and casting doubt on IPCC credibility, Richard Klein from the Stockholm Environment Institute in Sweden told New Scientist journalist Fred Pearce this gender and geographical quota was always the case, and they simply formalized it. "Membership has always been based on expertise, geographical balance and gender."

Again, is there any wonder that the liberal media has failed to discuss this or is it that they chose to ignore this information in hopes that their minions will be too lazy to look up anything for themselves? If one of their blind followers is ever confronted, they can simply dismiss the questions as hysteria coming from radical, right-wing kooks. When one begins to peel back the layers of this so-called "settled science," it's hard not to question who is really being hysterical and conspiratorial?

Let's go back to grade school and two students are picked to be captains of opposing dodge ball teams. One student chooses his team by picking the fast and athletic kids. He wants people who know how to move fast and catch a ball quickly, since that is what dodge ball is all about. The other student decides to choose students in a manner that reflects a balance of race, creed, and gender (similar to what the IPCC did to chose their panel). So which team would you like to be on? Which team do you think will win?

Repeatedly we have seen the media push the idea that scientists overwhelmingly support warming however, with some simple research, we can easily find that this is simply not true. There are different opinions and they are not simply ramblings of right-wingers hell-bent on ramming a political agenda.

However, global-warming skeptics argue that there is still a lot of guesswork in how scientists come to their conclusions. They take exception to the notion that there is a "consensus" agreement on the science –– that the science is settled and devastating man-made global warming is a foregone conclusion. 

"The only contentious aspect of the IPCC assessment is attribution –– what is the cause of global warming and climate change," says atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, who is president of the Science&Environmental Policy Project, a public policy institute based in Arlington, Va. "We have looked at every bit of data that IPCC has brought forth, and we see no credible evidence for human-caused global warming. None." 

In response to the latest IPCC report, Singer and other scientists formed the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). NIPCC is an international coalition of scientists convened to provide a "second opinion" on the scientific evidence available on the causes and consequences of climate change.

Is this merely a question of politics or this about science? One has to conclude that if man-made global warming IS real then what is the purpose of all this disinformation, mistakes, and continued dishonesty that we see coming from the IPCC and their report? Either the science is there or it's not.

Rather than openly discussing issues, those that have questions are simply dismissed or ridiculed. In fact, if you simply question why it is when you go outside it's terribly cold already and it's only September, you are considered anti-science or dismissed because of your obvious limited knowledge. However when you really look at how much tangible evidence that climate scientists have, you will find that they themselves only have their own limited views. Still considered a "new science" it simply is not scientific method to easily push aside other plausible ideas in favor of one and only one explanation. It is also worrisome to the outsider who watches this play out on television news and begins to wonder why it is the supposedly all-knowing scientists have such an issue with even bothering to be challenged. Shutting down debate will create more skeptics, not less.

So it isn't that Republicans are anti-science, perhaps they are too scientific?   Republicans overwhelmingly accept climate change yet are skeptical about global warming.   Actually, that turned out to be accurate.  'Global warming' was always a cringe-inducing term but science journalists and climate scientists felt the need to 'frame' the issue for a public audience they seem to think is rather stupid. 

The man that wrote the article I quoted from above , Hank Campbell,  is most certainly a believer in climate change and from what I gathered, he may specifically believe in warming but his overall point is that the means to changing someone's opinion should be done with the best scientific information we can find from the best scientists available, not political agendas, sloppy scientific referencing, or continued ad hominem attacks that come primarily from the left. The debate should be based in science and not other factors that can cloud someone's interpretation of data.

I do believe there is equipment that can accurately record temperatures up to one thousandth of a degree, as seen in various recorded data. With that being said, the earliest of recordings by a variety of instruments can be found as far back as 1850s. So, less than 200 years of information that has been obtained from many different sources and measured from different equipment calibrated at different values is extrapolated from that small sampling, covering a span of 6 billion years? Even if you are a creationist, two hundred years is but a dot on a timeline of 6000 years. If I record the activity of one second and then tell you with full certainty what the next 2 hours will be like, how scientific and accurate might you believe my conclusion to be?

If you would like to read about how these charts came about, depicting the great warming cycle that is said to be currently taking place, please click here. The post is probably one of the most interesting, informative, and alarming things I have read in recent times. No summary can do it justice. You will simply have to check it out for yourself. 

Taken all of the deviations that should be considered from above whether we include human error in recording, the sensitivity of the equipment used, the reality that not all instruments across the globe are of the same accuracy or quality, and the significance of these measurements, we can and should be highly skeptical since the overall deviation appears to be as much as one tenth of a degree or more, and before modern measuring equipment became available the accuracy would be even lower creating greater deviation. Let us also consider the measuring of carbon dioxide. The accuracy and ability for us to measure such a thing is also something that has improved over the years and again, all equipment used to measure anything is calibrated and has deviations in measurements. 

Anything is possible and this is an attitude that most real scientists take on since their concern is to arrive at truth and do so in a way that is honest and discerning. The climate has always changed but to suggest that the temperature can only change moving to a higher degree rather than a lower temperature is a fairly radical statement.

Carbon dioxide may indeed be some sort of catalyst for warming temperatures but doesn't it follow better logic to see that when temperatures warm, carbon dioxide must increase due to increased plant growth? Who was it that determined carbon dioxide was the only cause of this warming? There are many gases that are found inside our atmosphere. Either way, it seems to be very unscientific for such a "young science" to determine with a hundred percent certainty that they can only identify carbon dioxide as the main culprit. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is what plants and vegetation use to breath. Is oxygen a pollutant?



Another question that no one seems to bring up, especially the media is, "Okay, fair enough. Now tell me what horrible things will occur if the planet warms by one degree? Two degrees? Five degrees? Doesn't it seem to make sense that this might actually be a good thing? Winters here in the Midwest are brutal; I welcome a change, an increase is just fine for me. Alarmists will tell you that all kinds of crazy weather can occur if the earth continues to warm. Interestingly, weather has always found ways to show how crazy it is. That characteristic is not going to go away.

The other pill that is hard to swallow is this...Let us say for argument's sake that the science is indeed settled. What if we do everything that all these alarmist want us to do? Let's say everyone is in total agreement and everyone, every country does what they are told. (Since it's CO2, I guess we're just not supposed to exhale?) So whatever these plans may be...we all do them and we all do them together. What if it doesn't work? What if the planet just kept on warming up? What's the contingency plan here? Instead of investigating how mankind can adapt to changes rather than try and make unrealistic changes, where will we be when their ideas do not work? Has anyone of these alarmist bothered to entertain the idea that their solutions may not be solutions at all? Do these global warming alarmists actually believe that their ideas are so superior that they simply cannot fail? Seriously?

Since when does a scientist predict a proposed solution will be absolutely certain to work? What tests have been done to prove that we even have the power to control the climate? If we have so much power to control the climate and temperature, why is it weather stations in Baltimore cannot accurately predict temperatures for the following day? Now we are to believe that climate/weather can be predicted with accurate precision years in advance? Why not take this insane power we have and make some parts of the world warmer so that people can better enjoy their lives in places like South Dakota and Montana? Or take the power and change the weather in Florida to be a little cooler and less humid?


King James Version (KJV)

While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease. ~Genesis 8:22

Noah warned of the floods and told people to be aware but, nobody worked up a movement to stop H2O! The flood was not stopped; the people merely needed to concentrate on how they would adapt and survive  The people who survived prepared by going onto the Arc.

There are limitations to everything and the idea that we are going to control CO2 is just as absurd as someone suggesting we need to find a way to get rid of all this water. Still, nothing will stop the true-believer in their quest to scare people. You can click here for some examples of horrific events to come because man is warming the planet with their CO2.





In an article done by Time:

Why would so many supposedly rational human beings choose to ignore overwhelming scientific authority? 

Maybe because we're not actually so rational after all, as research is increasingly showing. Emotions and values — not always fully conscious — play an enormous role in how we process information and make choices. We are beset by cognitive biases that throw what would be sound decision-making off-balance. Take loss aversion: psychologists have found that human beings tend to be more concerned about avoiding losses than achieving gains, holding onto what they have even when this is not in their best interests. That has a simple parallel to climate politics: environmentalists argue that the shift to a low-carbon economy will create abundant new green jobs, but for many people, that prospect of future gain — even if it comes with a safer planet — may not be worth the risk of losing the jobs and economy they have.

First of all, not very many people are "denying" anything. This has nothing to do with denial since there doesn't seem to be any major evidence to deny. Some people just demand more information. Most conservatives are not wired to accept the words of a relatively few group of people just because the media tells them to because they are really, really smart. Most conservatives know history and because of this we are well aware of how easy it is to get a mass of people to support a cause that might not be good for us but great for the leaders on top. This is about being skeptical and only through skepticism, debate, and peer review can we really make true advancements. In the case of all sciences this has been mostly true until now.

As soon as someone comes to the table proclaiming, "The science is settled!" how can the usual protocol of debate and discussion take place? Furthermore, this issue has become one exploited by politicians on both sides of the political aisle. Where is the science? When I watch both sides of this debate I am amazed that on the one side of the debate you have an overwhelming amount of sanctimony and ridicule by people who refuse to debate and on the other side, you have some politicians questioning everything to the point of absurdity. Neither of these strategies are scientific. They are simply annoying and polarizing. IF the science is correct, then people like Al Gore need to realize HE is more of a problem than the CO2 he belts out lecturing everyone.

IF on the other hand, all of this is wrong, then good! I'm glad for it to be wrong. However, I don't believe in totally ignoring ideas that might indeed clean up the environment a little bit. We need clean water. We need to avoid pollution being pumped into the air. Conservatives are the real conversationalists or we are supposed to be. This was OUR issue and it got hijacked by a bunch of pot-heads who have never been camping or fishing a day in their lives! Let's talk about things like recycling and better ways to create energy. I don't know anyone that WANTS to shut those talks down but, forcing a view on people using tactics like appealing to authority, being unable to debate or dispute facts because the audience is just "too stupid" to understand, and working through the government rather than through private enterprise are all red flags that suggest this movement is not about science, it's about politics.

So if you are someone who truly believes in CO2 is hurting our planet, and you know facts, figures, and are concerned about the climate, it would behoove you to work through the people, not government. It will help you and your cause not to belittle people but rather explain your position in laymen terms or in ways that appeal to common sense. Many of you spout off ridiculous things that you yourself cannot even explain. In some cases it's clear you are just repeating information that you actually do not understand yourself. Whenever you are confronted, the belittlement begins followed by name calling and running quickly away from a debate. This happens all the time, all over the internet, and liberals are THE worst at exploiting these very sophomoric tactics and the sad part is, they actually think they are brilliant.


By working through people, it is at least much more plausible that you can get a certain part of the population doing things that you claim will help curtail the temperatures. However, using the force of government is not just immoral it is completely disturbing. Again, what if you're just plain wrong? This is a question that you need to ask yourself. Doing small parts here and there, encouraging a cleaner environment, and having a positive attitude are great ways to make your point. In addition we all need to take time to ask ourselves how we can prepare for climate changes. This is the planet and I hate to break it to everyone but the planet will warm and cool and warm again. So let's find ways to best prepare -- prepare -- not scare.

Also, make sure that you know the media may not "lie" but, omission of information in order to protect an agenda is the same thing. Here is something you won't find coming from the New York Times, LA Times, or other liberal, YES liberal biased media:

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ­government ­representatives. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. 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.

Yours faithfully,

Copy to: Heads of state of countries of the signatory persons.

Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference

Published: Wednesday, December 12, 2007

The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali:

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia

William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta

R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia

William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand

William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University

Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia

Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University

Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia

Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy



So tell me again about that consensus?