I think it is even more than just a money grab for a few. It is way to control the way people think and vote. This GW thing is just an extension of what has gone on in the USA for the last 75 years. Using mind control to create dependence in the government.
Also our government and the supporting media is great at fear-mongering.
As an example remember how we had to be in Vietnam because if Vietnam fell the rest of the world would fall like dominos. Well it didn't happen. Another example - ozone hole scare; that got shelved.
And now you have Al Gore claiming that every natural disaster is proof of GW created by man. If he lived in the 1600's I'm sure he might have been claiming the plague or the flood was due to witches. He would have wanted to be one of the leaders claiming to have the power to identify witches, and charging the villages for his services.
> I think the feds should entice me with some incentive money and tax rebates for trading those old carbon hogs in. I think $10,000 or $12,000 each would just about do it.
Talk to your local congressman to get him to add it to the pork list. Of course hevcprobably will expect some hefty contributions to his own needs, past, present, and future from you.
Last week, in the harsh desert climate of Abu Dhabi, construction started on a city that will house 50,000 people and 1,500 businesses but use extremely little energy, and what it does use will come from renewable sources. The initial building is a new research institute that the founders hope will be the seed for the equivalent of a Silicon Valley of the Middle East, only one centered not on information technology but on renewable energy.
The city, which is expected to cost $22 billion, will implement an array of technologies, including thin-film solar panels that serve as the facades and roofing materials for buildings, ubiquitous sensors for monitoring energy use, and driverless vehicles powered by batteries that make cars unnecessary. Indeed, the city's founders hope that it will serve as a test bed for a myriad of new technologies being proposed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
The new zero-emissions city, which is being built near the city of Abu Dhabi in the center of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), is part of the Masdar Initiative, a $15 billion government-funded investment program designed in part to ensure that the UAE's prosperity won't be linked exclusively to its oil. Its leaders say that the project will give the country a leadership position in renewable energy. If it's successful, says Sultan al Jaber, Masdar's CEO, "we'll be sitting on top of the world."
Designing the city from the ground up will bring a number of advantages. About half of the cost of solar energy comes from installation materials and labor. In Masdar, thin-film solar cells can be incorporated directly into the facades of buildings in place of conventional construction materials, reducing the costs of the solar power. Energy needed for cooling will be reduced by controlling the orientation and design of the city's buildings, streets, and green spaces to find a balance between shade and sun, and to promote natural-air circulation. Air conditioners will use absorption chillers that run on heat from the sun in place of conventional compressors.
Energy for transportation will also be reduced. Efficient electric transports will provide door-to-door service: just type in your destination, and the transport will come to your door and take you automatically to your destination. The power will be generated by renewable energy and stored onboard in batteries. On Monday, Masdar received the first bids on the system, which will likely use battery-powered vehicles running on tracks or powered by magnetic levitation.
Sounds good to me. Being ready to provide alternatives when the oil gets low is a smart move. The moderate countries over there are building some wonderful projects. Indoor ski resorts, tallest sky scrapers & the best hotels. Integrating solar energy in the desert makes a lot of sense. At a $100+ per barrel they have the money to spend. It also provides a lot of jobs for highly skilled Americans. I know several over there doing communications. Anyone looking for employment that pays well could do worse.
Curious about the Heartland Institute's list of "500 Prominent Scientists" who deny global warming, Kevin decided to contact some of the folks on the list. He put together a list of 150 email addresses...simply the addresses he found it most easy to acquire. After only 24 hours, he'd received 45 emails from angry scientists saying that they, in no way, denied anthropogenic global warming.
It turns out that the Heartland Institute had never told the scientists they were going on the list, nor did they check to see if these people actually had any doubts about the causes of climate change. Just a sampling of quotes from emails Kevin received:
"I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite."
"I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there."
"Please remove my name. What [they] have done is totally unethical!!'"
The Heartland Institute has been publicizing their list for years, and not a single journalist took the time to check the names on the list. The Heartland Institute has now distanced itself from the list, and withdrawn its claim that they are supported by 500 prominent global warming skeptic scientists.
Click on some of the links in that above link to get more quotes from outraged scientists (Gary, maybe they are worried about their grant money?) who have responded and said "Take me off this stupid list !!!"
DeSmogBlog, a Web site created to attack conservative and free-market nonprofit organizations, targeted The Heartland Institute in late April 2008, and in particular two lists posted on Heartland’s Web site of scientists whose published work contradicts some of the main tenets of global warming alarmism. The blog persuaded some of the scientists appearing in the lists to ask that their names be removed from the lists.
In response to the complaints, The Heartland Institute has changed the headlines that its PR department had chosen for some of the documents related to the lists, from “500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares” to “500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares.”
Aside from those headlines, none of the articles and news releases produced by The Heartland Institute or the Hudson Institute (the original source of the lists) claims that all of the scientists who appear in the lists currently doubt that the modern warming is man-made. In fact, The Hudson Institute’s news release says, “Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,” said Avery, “but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.”
We plan to make no further changes to the articles or to the lists.
We suspect this change will not satisfy the bloggers or the disgruntled scientists. Why? DeSmogBlog’s motivation is plain enough: It was created and is funded solely to demonize groups like The Heartland Institute. They are doing what they are paid to do.
What motivates the scientists? They have no right -- legally or ethically -- to demand that their names be removed from a bibliography composed by researchers with whom they disagree. Their names probably appear in hundreds or thousands of bibliographies accompanying other articles or in books with which they disagree. Do they plan to sue hundreds or thousands of their colleagues? The proper response is to engage in scholarly debate, not demand imperiously that the other side redact its publications.
Many of the complaining scientists have crossed the line between scientific research and policy advocacy. They lend their credibility to politicians and advocacy groups who call for higher taxes and more government regulations to “save the world” from catastrophic warming ... and not coincidentally, to fund more climate research. They are embarrassed -- as they should be -- to see their names in a list of scientists whose peer-reviewed published work suggests the modern warming might be due to a natural 1,500-year climate cycle.
"Nice catch" my prodigious boody................................and what do you mean "even larsb would stoop so low"???? Is that a backhanded insult?
Pointing out the games both sides play is "stooping low?" Not in my world.
I said in my post - "THE GAMES BOTH SIDES PLAY"
The Heartland Institute can eat crow all they want - they were BUSTED and now they are backtracking to cover it up. The other site is on the other side, DUH.
I think what those scientist that would not like to have their names on the list are embarrassed by the fact that their scientific papers do not line up with the popular GW agenda. They do not want to lose their funding. So they deny their own scientific studies to stay at the radical GW cults feeding trough.
An example is the Audubon Society. They have been taken over by the radical environmental groups. The May/June issue of the magazine is mostly GW opinion based on little or no facts. I sent them a letter with my cancellation. Told them to let me know when they get back to using scientific studies and not political opinions in their articles. Then I would start contributing again. This country is being taken down the wrong path by environmental zealots that are more of a religious cult than anything else. Give us some alternatives that work and are practical and I am all for it. Don't try making me feel guilty for my miniscule carbon footprint while theirs is 100s of times greater.
Making people feel guilty is how a lot of organizations do business. You seen the ASPCA commercials lately?
How about the old crying American Indian man from the 1970s ad?
No one can make you feel guilty if you are doing the right things.
People trying to avoid feelings of guilt is a major reason why a lot of charities are able to keep the doors open.
And remember: it's just "your opinion" that the GW zealots are taking us down the wrong path. They think they are right, and they DO have data to back themselves up - I have presented a lot of it on this forum. That arctic ice is not melting itself.
Until the day when someone can PROVE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, ignoring the POSSIBILITY that Man is negatively impacting global weather is a mistake.
I don't see how being cautious in that manner is leading us in the wrong direction.
The average temperature in April 2008 was 51.0 F. This was -1.0 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 29th coolest April in 114 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
I don't see how being cautious in that manner is leading us in the wrong direction.
I do if it is filling the pockets of unscrupulous con artists.
It has been pointed out so many times that the evidence is FLAWED. It is manipulated to put forward an agenda of MIND control over the masses. Little scientific evidence and a lot of phony graphics. Being taught to minds that are open to these lies. If the earth is on a warming trend so be it. The countries that are growing are not going to cut back. So we just need to adapt to what happens.
PS I got my electric bill down to $51 this time on my 3000 square foot home. I used 387 KWH with 56 CFL lights in our home.
Just another attempt to be misleading. Games both sides play was only in your heading and then you proceeded to post only your side. Sorry, you're busted!!
If I read the summary of the link right, it wasn't just the (now changed) headline that the scientists were objecting to.
The research may have raised questions but the scientists were complaining that Heartland was claiming that they had made up their mind (that there's no human caused climate change). Padding the numbers in other words.
It does seem strange that a scientist would post evidence challenging man made CC then refute it when he or she is put on display.
The bottom line is the proof of man made CC rests on the shoulders of those claiming it is fact. If the climate had not changed over 10,000, 1000, or 500 years they would have a lot more credibility. We have been led to believe that environmentalists are honest. Now we are finding out it is just not true. They may or may not have a genuine concern about the planet. Skewing facts to scare the public is criminal in my book.
That 0.1F / decade increase is pretty, pretty small. Especially since: heating oil is $4.00/gal; and we have to heat our houses around here from Oct-May. The forecast is for a sizzling high of 58F on Mon. But I do have a new chainsaw, and I think I have enough downed trees to cut-up for year or 2.
Not to worry that I'm going to be putting extra CO2 into the air. Whether I burn the wood or let the tree rot, the CO2 is released.
I bet this year is a boom to the wood stove and pellet industry. But you better buy early! I can get 3-cords of green wood for about $475.
So from where I sit a 10F increase in the climate would be fine. And I'm a few hundred feet in elevation, so no problem here.
Nothing in the article changed except the headline. All the research cited disputed human caused GW.
Even though it was their own research, a few of the scientists apparently did not want this made public. Probably these few were attempting to prove global warming but did not get the result they wanted and actually proved the opposite.
No number padding. Heartland stood by their numbers and conclusions. GW proponents are spin masters and they can easily sway those less sophisticated among us. I can understand why you were so confused.
I think it may be more accurate to say some of the scientists did not want organizations with an agenda to cherry pick their data to promote a conclusion not in the studies.
Woo - A Whole Month of below-average temps ???? Well, THAT changes my mind about 19 of the last 25 years being ABOVE AVERAGE !!! That changes EVERYTHING GARY !!! Thanks !!!! (have removed tongue from cheek now)
And your "pointing out so many times that the evidence is FLAWED" means little, because it's just YOUR OPINION that the evidence is flawed.
There are thousands of climate scientists who disagree with you and thousands who disagree with me, so, we are at a standoff on that.
You think the historical record is bunk, and that the guvmint agencies analyzing the weather are paid to be wrong (or worse LIE) and I think those are completely incorrect points of view. I don't know of ANY anti-GW scientists who have said the GW folks are wrong because they are analyzing published historical temperatures or that they are lying, as you have stated is your view.
Do you know world-renowned climate scientists who say that? If so, point me to a link where they are interviewed or have a study posted. I'd like to see someone who agrees with you on those points.
And I agree we need to adapt. That means programs to scale back fossil fuel usage and pollution.
P.S. Good job on the electric bill, however. That's awesome. I do 387 kwh in about 14 days. Mine's going to be different soon, though. I installed an Energy Sentry computer to help reduce my utility bills, and I'm working on a solar water heater system now too.
Hmmm, I'm thinking that you're playing fast and loose with the data again. You continue to ignore historical data that goes beyond the time of "modern record keeping", and yet you just as easily chuck out results for a single month.
The fact is, given the true history of weather on this planet, one hundred and fifty years really isn't all that much more significant than a single month, or even a single day for that matter. Why? The scope for both is just waaaay too short to be of any scientific relevance.
Good job on the electric bill, however. That's awesome. I do 387 kwh in about 14 days.
Thank you, I do not have any kids to leave lights on. No TV to waste energy. This computer is on a little over half a day with an LCD monitor. Hot water heater is propane. One of the latest energy efficient refrigerators, washer and dryer. The biggest difference was that spa. At least $35 per month during the winter.
PS Since they have been able to read the ocean temperatures of the world, there have not been any significant changes in the temperature. The oceans control 80-90% of the worlds climate. Those facts even the scientists that accumulated them cannot explain. So how are non scientist and politicians supposed to understand?
Let's all get a BIG SUV and help Kernick save on the forest he is going to use to keep warm
I'm not going to argue over "what makes up a valid tend" because there are too many people being stubborn about it. Myself included. It's a waste of keystrokes.
The point is: I know a valid trend when I see one. One month is not one.
For once we agree, a month is not a trend. That said, 150 years isn't a trend either; weather cycles simply last way to long to derive much of anything (trend wise) from only 150 years of data.
Well we could breakup the month into days or even hours and then the trend would LOOK more impressive. That's the problem we've been telling you about - cherrypicking or selecting the time frame, and then saying that is all that is significant, or that is the most important.
My company had a class yesterday on "methods of solving problems". The first rule in determining whether you have a problem, is comparing the current situation to a standard. So with the climate issue you do need to understand the climate over many millions of years to know what is Normal. If you do this then you come to the conclusion that what has happened in the past few hundred years or the past thousand years is very similar to the Standard which is what's happened over and over again over many millions of years.
The Earth is not the hottest it's ever been; not even close. Does man affect the climate - of course, but it is not enough to show the temperature any different than without man. All you're doing by quoting the last 150 years temperature rise, is the same to me as being on the street in Phoenix with a thermometer and a lit match, and reporting that it's hotter at 11:02am than 11:01am which was hotter than 11:00am, and wondering if you were making it hotter with your match. The temperature increase is normal though you are adding a very slight amount of heat. And if we watch the temperature day after day we'd see Phoenix goes through periodic natural changes with each day.
The Earth's "climate-days" however are probably abut 50,000 years.
Until the day when someone can PROVE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, ignoring the POSSIBILITY that Man is negatively impacting global weather is a mistake.
Well, mankind is not ignoring the possibility, as there are many laws and policies that protect the environment.
I don't see how being cautious in that manner is leading us in the wrong direction.
Never heard of "better safe than sorry?"
I know you've probably written on this before, but what would you like to see done reguarding global warming...from an individual standpoint and from a government one as well?
All I want is money spent on weather analysis (not future modeling) which would help determine what we need to do as stewards of the planet.
If Gw is real, and if Man is exacerbating it, then we need to find the best solutions to slow down our own effect and do what it takes to return Earf's weather to what it would be were Man not negatively affecting it.
Some of the biggest Vietnam escalations were ordered by representatives of the same political party that Al Gore represented for 8 years.
Right now, a program on the History.com channel indicates that Neanderthal man was built (some would say evolved) for EXTREME cold. (59,000 years ago?) AKA ICE AGE. Funny how a scant 40 years ago the predictions were for a huge new COLD period with much less mitigation of emissions.
Stewards of the Earth?? Are you self-appointing yourself or all of us? And then exactly where do we get the power to be stewards of the Earth? The last I knew we didn't have the power to control earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes, or stop any particular solar "intruder".
do what it takes to return Earf's weather to what it would be were Man not negatively affecting it.
You are assuming that if Man is affecting the climate - it is negative. Natural is not always better. If natural was better then there would be no need to build shelters, run AC's, or burn fuels.
What man does on Earth, and hopes to do on the moon or other planets is - change the environment to what is beneficial for Man. The climate of the Earth is NOT PERFECT now. It changes. It has never been perfect, and will never be perfect. And many people would not care for a strictly natural climate. Go watch a few episodes of different Survivor series from various places around the world, and come back and tell us how the climate is perfect.
Your wish for a natural earth where mankind makes no effect (and assuming Man's is always negative, because you want Natural), would lead to a short, miserable, brutal, lifestyle.
At this point, it appears you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
Do you really need me to explain the stewardship concept to you? OK. Everyone knows that it's correct procedure to take care of something which benefits you. It's basic survival. It takes no special "power" to be stewards of the Earf. It takes no special power to take care of your home or car. When you are relying on something to provide you with benefits, it only makes perfect common sense to take care of it.
Do the right thing by doing no harm.
And I'm not "assuming" that Man is negatively affecting it. I'm saying we need to find out if we are and stop it if we are.
I have never once (at least intentionally) concluded or insinuated that it is a fact Man is harming the Earf. That would mean the GW debate is over and decided, and we all know it is not.
And I'm not "assuming" that Man is negatively affecting it. I'm saying we need to find out if we are and stop it if we are
If we conclude that man is the culprit and CO2 emissions are the cause. According to your statement we should stop what causes it. That would mean at least 75% or our electric generation and 99.9% of our cars, trucks, trains, planes & ships. And of course the electric cars will not have any power to charge them so we come to a complete standstill. We could go all nuclear power which is much cleaner than coal. Then we have a whole new group of environmentalist that will rise up to block them. Solar is out because of the large amounts of electricity required to produce solar panels. Of course we cannot use wind generators as it is an eyesore to Teddy and Robert Kennedy Jr. So just what good will it do to determine IF man has any influence on the Climate? And who plans to tell China and India to shut down their rapidly expanding industrial base?
Everyone knows that it's correct procedure to take care of something which benefits you.
Well the earth's climate does not benefit most people. We are constantly trying to fight its extremes, and make it more benevolent. Hawaii is relatively nice climate for Man.
I guess these Chinese weren't being good stewards? and thus the Earf smote-them, to tell the Chinese to be good? why didn't the Chinese be stewards and stop the Earthquake, which is natural? but isn't that good? http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-05-12-china-earthquake_N.htm
It takes no special "power" to be stewards of the Earf. It takes no special power to take care of your home or car.
Sure - I can turn off or vacuum up after a volcano, just like my car. I can stop the gases from a volcano or the CO2 coming from the ocean, just like shutting off my car.
And I'm not "assuming" that Man is negatively affecting it. I'm saying we need to find out if we are and stop it if we are.
Our effect on the Earth's climate (though very small) is not definitively good or bad. It is SUBJECTIVE to what each individual thinks. The Earth on average is 57F, and warming is negative. I think it is too cold and hope for GW; GW is good in my book. Life thrives in warmer, tropical areas.
... that it is a fact Man is harming the Earf. That would mean the GW debate is over and decided, and we all know it is not.
Right here you're saying IF man is causing GW that is negative; it is not negative - it is only your opinion and others that GW is negative. And you still make the illogical comment then that "the Earth is harmed", and ignore that the Earth is not alive, therefore can't be harmed as a lifeform would.
Auto emissions do contribute to the rising CO2 levels. De- forestation of rain forests, burning the wood and planting crops has killed millions of trees which could convert CO2 to usable O2 but has also added to CO2 by burning wood.. A double disaster. Man is his own worst enemy IMO I am going to do what I've always done. Let them move when the water rises. Let them eat cake.
We could go all nuclear power which is much cleaner than coal. Then we have a whole new group of environmentalist that will rise up to block them.
The golden age of the "environmentalist wackos" is about to take a turn for the worse. With $4 a gallon gas prices, with no end in sight to increases, the door will be open for more nuclear power and offshore drilling. I also understand a new refinery hasn't been built in the U.S since 1967, let's go ahead and build a couple more of those. Even the "greenies" don't like paying $4 or $5 for a gallon of gas... they'll be changing their tune.
The pendulum will be swinging heavily in favor towards whatever party can provide cheaper sources of energy. I see the democrats taking this election. But, after that we'll have a republican candidate running on a platform based on sucking more earl out of the earf.
Nuke power in the US is pretty cheap right now because the early adopters lost their shirts and sold at a loss to the current owners. Figure up to $12 billion to build a new nuke plant. And you thought it was expensive to fill your tank - wait until you see your electric bill after your utility starts building nukes and the cost overruns hit. WSJ
Well then, how about freeing up all that low sulfur coal that Clinton froze so his buddies could make billions? That would be a cheap source that would last for a few hundred years or so.
Sir Paul McCartney is said to be "horrified" that his new eco-friendly car was flown 7,000 miles from Japan.
The Lexus LS600H, which costs £84,000, was a gift from Lexus to the 65-year-old former Beatle, who helped promote the hybrid vehicle.
But instead of arriving by boat as expected, the car was flown to Britain on a Korean Air flight, creating a carbon footprint almost 100 times bigger than if it had come by sea.
Sir Paul is a vocal advocate of vegetarianism and has long been a poster child for environmental activism.
A source is reported to have said: "Paul was offered a Lexus as a gift and ordered the hybrid limo because it helps to reduce emissions.
"He'll be horrified after learning it was delivered by plane. Paul has always campaigned for green issues and he can’t understand why anyone would send an enormous car from Japan to Britain on a plane."
Carbon offsetting firm CO2balance.com said the plane journey would have caused a carbon footprint of 38,050kg, compared to 397kg for a three-week boat journey.
A carbon footprint is the measure of the impact that human activity has on the environment and is measured in units of carbon dioxide.
Co2balance.com Director Mike Rigby said: "That is the equivalent of driving the car around the world six times."
I would imagine the figures were based on the cargo space taken up in the aircraft. Same as the figure given for ship transport. The folks dealing in carbon credits have this down to a science. I don't think they just threw the LS600h in an empty spot. They could have hauled fresh fish or fruit in its place. Something that needs to get delivered in a timely manner.
A spokesman for Swissport, the freight handling company who unloaded the car at Heathrow, said: "Obviously we were happy for the business but everyone was shocked. The carbon footprint must be enormous."
Paddy Gillett of the anti-aviation lobby group Plane Stupid, said: "For anyone to pretend that a private limousine is in any way eco-friendly is like pretending a private jet is. It's total greenwash."
Sir Paul, who is also a vegan, has previously lauded Lexus for their commitment to making hybrid vehicles. Lexus sponsored the singer’s 2005 US tour.
The Lexus is probably better on the environment than the Rolls Royces in his fleet of vehicles. Of course I would expect him to praise Lexus when they sponsor his tour.
And you thought it was expensive to fill your tank - wait until you see your electric bill after your utility starts building nukes and the cost overruns
With increasing demand for energy, something needs to be done to increase the supply. What's the alternative to $12 billion nuclear plants? Waiting 50 years until all the oil and coal are severely depleted? That will turn that $12 billion plant into a $95 billion plant.
Can't say I understand the relationship between plants and utilites. A gas, electric, or nuclear power plant sends energy to utility companies... who then supply the homeowners? A utility company will buy energy from the cheapest sources for it's customers. If so, then nuclear powered electricity, from that new $12 billion plant, would have to be competitively priced... no?
Also, your link was a bit of a tease. It provides the first paragraph of the Wall Street Journal article. To read the remainder I have to order a subscription. You getting kickbacks?
"...planting crops has killed millions of trees..."
Here in New York State we now have more forested land than in the last 150 years. Gov't regulation, high taxes and a general anti-business environment have put hundreds of farms into foreclosure. The abandon farms then grow up to forests. Great for the deer and the birds...not so great for the humans. Unless you are a rich environmental lawyer who can pick up country land cheap for your vacation home.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Here are you some stats to chew on regarding forest data:
Thirty-three percent of the total land area in the United States is forested. This compares to 46 percent forested at the time of European settlement. Between 1600 and 1920, 13 percent of the land area (29 percent of the forested area) was lost to clearing for agriculture and towns. Most of this clearing occurred between 1850 and 1910. By far the largest part was cleared for farming. Cities actually occupy a very small percentage of the total land area.
Today, the United States has about the same area of forestland as it did in 1920, even though there has been a 143 percent increase in population between then and today. There are two main reasons why the area of land in crops has remained stable since 1920. First, in 1910 about one-quarter of the land in crops was used to produce food for horses and other draft animals. The advent of the automobile and tractor made it possible to use that land to produce food for people instead. Second, advances in technology, chemistry, and genetics have made it possible to produce much more food on the same amount of land.
Forests have been a major feature of planet Earth ever since trees evolved from smaller plants more than 300 million years ago. Today, 29.6 percent of the world's land area is covered by forest. The area of forest cover has changed over time as climate changed, as ice ages came and went, and more recently as the human population cleared large areas of forest for food production. During the rise of civilization, 40 percent of the forest cover that existed 5,000 years ago has been converted to farms and cities. Most of this deforestation has occurred during the past 200 years to grow the food for a rapidly rising population.
As of the year 2000, the world's forest cover was 3.9 billion hectares (9.8 billion acres) or 29.6 percent of the total land area of 13.1 billion hectares (32.8 billion acres).
There are two main reasons why the area of land in crops has remained stable since 1920. First, in 1910 about one-quarter of the land in crops was used to produce food for horses and other draft animals. The advent of the automobile and tractor made it possible to use that land to produce food for people instead.
So actually the use of the automobile and the tractor have kept down the amount of deforestation. If we all used animals for transport and farm-work, the forests would basically be gone, and we've all read how much CO2 the trees of the forests absorb. If the forests were eliminated there might be higher CO2 in the atmosphere than even today!
If we didn't have fossil fuels for energy and trucks for transport, people would not be able to live in compact cities. Cities actually keep people from having an even greater impact on the environment. If everyone had to provide for themselves, every family would need 50-100 acres, so they could grow their own food, grow feed for the animals, and have some trees to cut for building materials and firewood. There would be no land left for national parks and such, and most of the game that exist today would be wiped out either for food, or their habitats would be used by humans.
Monday, May 19, 2008 8:00 AM EPA Roundtable (News Conference) Description: EPA Leadership Roundtable Sponsored by:EPA Location: First Amendment Lounge 10:00 AM OISM (News Conference) Description: MEDIA ADVISORY: Dr. Arthur Robinson (OISM) to release names of over 30,000 scientists rejecting global warming hypothesis
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM)
Who: Dr. Arthur Robinson of the OISM
What: release of names in OISM "Petition Project"
When: 10:00am on Monday May 19
Where: Holeman Lounge at the National Press Club, 529 14th St., NW, Washington, DC
Why: the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM's Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of "settled science" and an overwhelming "consensus" in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science -- including 9,021 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not "skeptics."
Comments
I think it is even more than just a money grab for a few. It is way to control the way people think and vote. This GW thing is just an extension of what has gone on in the USA for the last 75 years. Using mind control to create dependence in the government.
As an example remember how we had to be in Vietnam because if Vietnam fell the rest of the world would fall like dominos. Well it didn't happen. Another example - ozone hole scare; that got shelved.
And now you have Al Gore claiming that every natural disaster is proof of GW created by man. If he lived in the 1600's I'm sure he might have been claiming the plague or the flood was due to witches. He would have wanted to be one of the leaders claiming to have the power to identify witches, and charging the villages for his services.
Talk to your local congressman to get him to add it to the pork list. Of course hevcprobably will expect some hefty contributions to his own needs, past, present, and future from you.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Last week, in the harsh desert climate of Abu Dhabi, construction started on a city that will house 50,000 people and 1,500 businesses but use extremely little energy, and what it does use will come from renewable sources. The initial building is a new research institute that the founders hope will be the seed for the equivalent of a Silicon Valley of the Middle East, only one centered not on information technology but on renewable energy.
The city, which is expected to cost $22 billion, will implement an array of technologies, including thin-film solar panels that serve as the facades and roofing materials for buildings, ubiquitous sensors for monitoring energy use, and driverless vehicles powered by batteries that make cars unnecessary. Indeed, the city's founders hope that it will serve as a test bed for a myriad of new technologies being proposed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
The new zero-emissions city, which is being built near the city of Abu Dhabi in the center of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), is part of the Masdar Initiative, a $15 billion government-funded investment program designed in part to ensure that the UAE's prosperity won't be linked exclusively to its oil. Its leaders say that the project will give the country a leadership position in renewable energy. If it's successful, says Sultan al Jaber, Masdar's CEO, "we'll be sitting on top of the world."
Designing the city from the ground up will bring a number of advantages. About half of the cost of solar energy comes from installation materials and labor. In Masdar, thin-film solar cells can be incorporated directly into the facades of buildings in place of conventional construction materials, reducing the costs of the solar power. Energy needed for cooling will be reduced by controlling the orientation and design of the city's buildings, streets, and green spaces to find a balance between shade and sun, and to promote natural-air circulation. Air conditioners will use absorption chillers that run on heat from the sun in place of conventional compressors.
Energy for transportation will also be reduced. Efficient electric transports will provide door-to-door service: just type in your destination, and the transport will come to your door and take you automatically to your destination. The power will be generated by renewable energy and stored onboard in batteries. On Monday, Masdar received the first bids on the system, which will likely use battery-powered vehicles running on tracks or powered by magnetic levitation.
Oh the Games Both Sides Play !!!
Curious about the Heartland Institute's list of "500 Prominent Scientists" who deny global warming, Kevin decided to contact some of the folks on the list. He put together a list of 150 email addresses...simply the addresses he found it most easy to acquire. After only 24 hours, he'd received 45 emails from angry scientists saying that they, in no way, denied anthropogenic global warming.
It turns out that the Heartland Institute had never told the scientists they were going on the list, nor did they check to see if these people actually had any doubts about the causes of climate change. Just a sampling of quotes from emails Kevin received:
"I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite."
"I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there."
"Please remove my name. What [they] have done is totally unethical!!'"
The Heartland Institute has been publicizing their list for years, and not a single journalist took the time to check the names on the list. The Heartland Institute has now distanced itself from the list, and withdrawn its claim that they are supported by 500 prominent global warming skeptic scientists.
Click on some of the links in that above link to get more quotes from outraged scientists (Gary, maybe they are worried about their grant money?) who have responded and said "Take me off this stupid list !!!"
Very funny...........
In response to the complaints, The Heartland Institute has changed the headlines that its PR department had chosen for some of the documents related to the lists, from “500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares” to “500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares.”
Aside from those headlines, none of the articles and news releases produced by The Heartland Institute or the Hudson Institute (the original source of the lists) claims that all of the scientists who appear in the lists currently doubt that the modern warming is man-made. In fact, The Hudson Institute’s news release says, “Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,” said Avery, “but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.”
We plan to make no further changes to the articles or to the lists.
We suspect this change will not satisfy the bloggers or the disgruntled scientists. Why? DeSmogBlog’s motivation is plain enough: It was created and is funded solely to demonize groups like The Heartland Institute. They are doing what they are paid to do.
What motivates the scientists? They have no right -- legally or ethically -- to demand that their names be removed from a bibliography composed by researchers with whom they disagree. Their names probably appear in hundreds or thousands of bibliographies accompanying other articles or in books with which they disagree. Do they plan to sue hundreds or thousands of their colleagues? The proper response is to engage in scholarly debate, not demand imperiously that the other side redact its publications.
Many of the complaining scientists have crossed the line between scientific research and policy advocacy. They lend their credibility to politicians and advocacy groups who call for higher taxes and more government regulations to “save the world” from catastrophic warming ... and not coincidentally, to fund more climate research. They are embarrassed -- as they should be -- to see their names in a list of scientists whose peer-reviewed published work suggests the modern warming might be due to a natural 1,500-year climate cycle.
Straight from the source:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23207
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Pointing out the games both sides play is "stooping low?" Not in my world.
I said in my post - "THE GAMES BOTH SIDES PLAY"
The Heartland Institute can eat crow all they want - they were BUSTED and now they are backtracking to cover it up. The other site is on the other side, DUH.
The Games Both Sides Play.
An example is the Audubon Society. They have been taken over by the radical environmental groups. The May/June issue of the magazine is mostly GW opinion based on little or no facts. I sent them a letter with my cancellation. Told them to let me know when they get back to using scientific studies and not political opinions in their articles. Then I would start contributing again. This country is being taken down the wrong path by environmental zealots that are more of a religious cult than anything else. Give us some alternatives that work and are practical and I am all for it. Don't try making me feel guilty for my miniscule carbon footprint while theirs is 100s of times greater.
How about the old crying American Indian man from the 1970s ad?
No one can make you feel guilty if you are doing the right things.
People trying to avoid feelings of guilt is a major reason why a lot of charities are able to keep the doors open.
And remember: it's just "your opinion" that the GW zealots are taking us down the wrong path. They think they are right, and they DO have data to back themselves up - I have presented a lot of it on this forum. That arctic ice is not melting itself.
Until the day when someone can PROVE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, ignoring the POSSIBILITY that Man is negatively impacting global weather is a mistake.
I don't see how being cautious in that manner is leading us in the wrong direction.
Never heard of "better safe than sorry?"
I don't see how being cautious in that manner is leading us in the wrong direction.
I do if it is filling the pockets of unscrupulous con artists.
It has been pointed out so many times that the evidence is FLAWED. It is manipulated to put forward an agenda of MIND control over the masses. Little scientific evidence and a lot of phony graphics. Being taught to minds that are open to these lies. If the earth is on a warming trend so be it. The countries that are growing are not going to cut back. So we just need to adapt to what happens.
PS
I got my electric bill down to $51 this time on my 3000 square foot home. I used 387 KWH with 56 CFL lights in our home.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
The research may have raised questions but the scientists were complaining that Heartland was claiming that they had made up their mind (that there's no human caused climate change). Padding the numbers in other words.
It does seem strange that a scientist would post evidence challenging man made CC then refute it when he or she is put on display.
The bottom line is the proof of man made CC rests on the shoulders of those claiming it is fact. If the climate had not changed over 10,000, 1000, or 500 years they would have a lot more credibility. We have been led to believe that environmentalists are honest. Now we are finding out it is just not true. They may or may not have a genuine concern about the planet. Skewing facts to scare the public is criminal in my book.
gotcha. :shades:
heating oil is $4.00/gal; and we have to heat our houses around here from Oct-May. The forecast is for a sizzling high of 58F on Mon.
But I do have a new chainsaw, and I think I have enough downed trees to cut-up for year or 2.
Not to worry that I'm going to be putting extra CO2 into the air. Whether I burn the wood or let the tree rot, the CO2 is released.
I bet this year is a boom to the wood stove and pellet industry. But you better buy early! I can get 3-cords of green wood for about $475.
So from where I sit a 10F increase in the climate would be fine. And I'm a few hundred feet in elevation, so no problem here.
Even though it was their own research, a few of the scientists apparently did not want this made public. Probably these few were attempting to prove global warming but did not get the result they wanted and actually proved the opposite.
No number padding. Heartland stood by their numbers and conclusions. GW proponents are spin masters and they can easily sway those less sophisticated among us. I can understand why you were so confused.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
And your "pointing out so many times that the evidence is FLAWED" means little, because it's just YOUR OPINION that the evidence is flawed.
There are thousands of climate scientists who disagree with you and thousands who disagree with me, so, we are at a standoff on that.
You think the historical record is bunk, and that the guvmint agencies analyzing the weather are paid to be wrong (or worse LIE) and I think those are completely incorrect points of view.
I don't know of ANY anti-GW scientists who have said the GW folks are wrong because they are analyzing published historical temperatures or that they are lying, as you have stated is your view.
Do you know world-renowned climate scientists who say that? If so, point me to a link where they are interviewed or have a study posted. I'd like to see someone who agrees with you on those points.
And I agree we need to adapt. That means programs to scale back fossil fuel usage and pollution.
P.S. Good job on the electric bill, however. That's awesome. I do 387 kwh in about 14 days. Mine's going to be different soon, though. I installed an Energy Sentry computer to help reduce my utility bills, and I'm working on a solar water heater system now too.
The fact is, given the true history of weather on this planet, one hundred and fifty years really isn't all that much more significant than a single month, or even a single day for that matter. Why? The scope for both is just waaaay too short to be of any scientific relevance.
Thank you, I do not have any kids to leave lights on. No TV to waste energy. This computer is on a little over half a day with an LCD monitor. Hot water heater is propane. One of the latest energy efficient refrigerators, washer and dryer. The biggest difference was that spa. At least $35 per month during the winter.
PS
Since they have been able to read the ocean temperatures of the world, there have not been any significant changes in the temperature. The oceans control 80-90% of the worlds climate. Those facts even the scientists that accumulated them cannot explain. So how are non scientist and politicians supposed to understand?
Let's all get a BIG SUV and help Kernick save on the forest he is going to use to keep warm
The point is: I know a valid trend when I see one. One month is not one.
Well we could breakup the month into days or even hours and then the trend would LOOK more impressive. That's the problem we've been telling you about - cherrypicking or selecting the time frame, and then saying that is all that is significant, or that is the most important.
My company had a class yesterday on "methods of solving problems". The first rule in determining whether you have a problem, is comparing the current situation to a standard. So with the climate issue you do need to understand the climate over many millions of years to know what is Normal. If you do this then you come to the conclusion that what has happened in the past few hundred years or the past thousand years is very similar to the Standard which is what's happened over and over again over many millions of years.
The Earth is not the hottest it's ever been; not even close. Does man affect the climate - of course, but it is not enough to show the temperature any different than without man. All you're doing by quoting the last 150 years temperature rise, is the same to me as being on the street in Phoenix with a thermometer and a lit match, and reporting that it's hotter at 11:02am than 11:01am which was hotter than 11:00am, and wondering if you were making it hotter with your match. The temperature increase is normal though you are adding a very slight amount of heat. And if we watch the temperature day after day we'd see Phoenix goes through periodic natural changes with each day.
The Earth's "climate-days" however are probably abut 50,000 years.
Well, mankind is not ignoring the possibility, as there are many laws and policies that protect the environment.
I don't see how being cautious in that manner is leading us in the wrong direction.
Never heard of "better safe than sorry?"
I know you've probably written on this before, but what would you like to see done reguarding global warming...from an individual standpoint and from a government one as well?
If Gw is real, and if Man is exacerbating it, then we need to find the best solutions to slow down our own effect and do what it takes to return Earf's weather to what it would be were Man not negatively affecting it.
IF we are.......And no one knows that !!!!
Right now, a program on the History.com channel indicates that Neanderthal man was built (some would say evolved) for EXTREME cold. (59,000 years ago?) AKA ICE AGE. Funny how a scant 40 years ago the predictions were for a huge new COLD period with much less mitigation of emissions.
Stewards of the Earth?? Are you self-appointing yourself or all of us? And then exactly where do we get the power to be stewards of the Earth? The last I knew we didn't have the power to control earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes, or stop any particular solar "intruder".
do what it takes to return Earf's weather to what it would be were Man not negatively affecting it.
You are assuming that if Man is affecting the climate - it is negative. Natural is not always better. If natural was better then there would be no need to build shelters, run AC's, or burn fuels.
What man does on Earth, and hopes to do on the moon or other planets is - change the environment to what is beneficial for Man. The climate of the Earth is NOT PERFECT now. It changes. It has never been perfect, and will never be perfect. And many people would not care for a strictly natural climate. Go watch a few episodes of different Survivor series from various places around the world, and come back and tell us how the climate is perfect.
Your wish for a natural earth where mankind makes no effect (and assuming Man's is always negative, because you want Natural), would lead to a short, miserable, brutal, lifestyle.
Do you really need me to explain the stewardship concept to you? OK. Everyone knows that it's correct procedure to take care of something which benefits you. It's basic survival. It takes no special "power" to be stewards of the Earf. It takes no special power to take care of your home or car. When you are relying on something to provide you with benefits, it only makes perfect common sense to take care of it.
Do the right thing by doing no harm.
And I'm not "assuming" that Man is negatively affecting it. I'm saying we need to find out if we are and stop it if we are.
I have never once (at least intentionally) concluded or insinuated that it is a fact Man is harming the Earf. That would mean the GW debate is over and decided, and we all know it is not.
If we conclude that man is the culprit and CO2 emissions are the cause. According to your statement we should stop what causes it. That would mean at least 75% or our electric generation and 99.9% of our cars, trucks, trains, planes & ships. And of course the electric cars will not have any power to charge them so we come to a complete standstill. We could go all nuclear power which is much cleaner than coal. Then we have a whole new group of environmentalist that will rise up to block them. Solar is out because of the large amounts of electricity required to produce solar panels. Of course we cannot use wind generators as it is an eyesore to Teddy and Robert Kennedy Jr. So just what good will it do to determine IF man has any influence on the Climate? And who plans to tell China and India to shut down their rapidly expanding industrial base?
Well the earth's climate does not benefit most people. We are constantly trying to fight its extremes, and make it more benevolent. Hawaii is relatively nice climate for Man.
I guess these Chinese weren't being good stewards? and thus the Earf smote-them, to tell the Chinese to be good? why didn't the Chinese be stewards and stop the Earthquake, which is natural? but isn't that good?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-05-12-china-earthquake_N.htm
It takes no special "power" to be stewards of the Earf. It takes no special power to take care of your home or car.
Sure - I can turn off or vacuum up after a volcano, just like my car. I can stop the gases from a volcano or the CO2 coming from the ocean, just like shutting off my car.
And I'm not "assuming" that Man is negatively affecting it. I'm saying we need to find out if we are and stop it if we are.
Our effect on the Earth's climate (though very small) is not definitively good or bad. It is SUBJECTIVE to what each individual thinks. The Earth on average is 57F, and warming is negative. I think it is too cold and hope for GW; GW is good in my book. Life thrives in warmer, tropical areas.
... that it is a fact Man is harming the Earf. That would mean the GW debate is over and decided, and we all know it is not.
Right here you're saying IF man is causing GW that is negative; it is not negative - it is only your opinion and others that GW is negative.
And you still make the illogical comment then that "the Earth is harmed", and ignore that the Earth is not alive, therefore can't be harmed as a lifeform would.
Since I don't care to keep re-explaining myself, why don't you just keep on thinking I said what you THINK I said.
But that still will not be what I said.
De- forestation of rain forests, burning the wood and planting crops has killed millions of trees which could convert CO2 to usable O2 but has also added to CO2 by burning wood.. A double disaster.
Man is his own worst enemy IMO
I am going to do what I've always done. Let them move when the water rises.
Let them eat cake.
The golden age of the "environmentalist wackos" is about to take a turn for the worse. With $4 a gallon gas prices, with no end in sight to increases, the door will be open for more nuclear power and offshore drilling. I also understand a new refinery hasn't been built in the U.S since 1967, let's go ahead and build a couple more of those. Even the "greenies" don't like paying $4 or $5 for a gallon of gas... they'll be changing their tune.
The pendulum will be swinging heavily in favor towards whatever party can provide cheaper sources of energy. I see the democrats taking this election. But, after that we'll have a republican candidate running on a platform based on sucking more earl out of the earf.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
The Lexus LS600H, which costs £84,000, was a gift from Lexus to the 65-year-old former Beatle, who helped promote the hybrid vehicle.
But instead of arriving by boat as expected, the car was flown to Britain on a Korean Air flight, creating a carbon footprint almost 100 times bigger than if it had come by sea.
Sir Paul is a vocal advocate of vegetarianism and has long been a poster child for environmental activism.
A source is reported to have said: "Paul was offered a Lexus as a gift and ordered the hybrid limo because it helps to reduce emissions.
"He'll be horrified after learning it was delivered by plane. Paul has always campaigned for green issues and he can’t understand why anyone would send an enormous car from Japan to Britain on a plane."
Carbon offsetting firm CO2balance.com said the plane journey would have caused a carbon footprint of 38,050kg, compared to 397kg for a three-week boat journey.
A carbon footprint is the measure of the impact that human activity has on the environment and is measured in units of carbon dioxide.
Co2balance.com Director Mike Rigby said: "That is the equivalent of driving the car around the world six times."
If it was the only reason, then it's definitely conspicuous consumption. But it reduces the impact if the flight was used for other purposes also.
If it was making the flight ANYWAY and they said, "here, take Paul's Lexus while you are at it" then it's really no big deal.
A spokesman for Swissport, the freight handling company who unloaded the car at Heathrow, said: "Obviously we were happy for the business but everyone was shocked. The carbon footprint must be enormous."
Paddy Gillett of the anti-aviation lobby group Plane Stupid, said: "For anyone to pretend that a private limousine is in any way eco-friendly is like pretending a private jet is. It's total greenwash."
Sir Paul, who is also a vegan, has previously lauded Lexus for their commitment to making hybrid vehicles. Lexus sponsored the singer’s 2005 US tour.
The Lexus is probably better on the environment than the Rolls Royces in his fleet of vehicles. Of course I would expect him to praise Lexus when they sponsor his tour.
With increasing demand for energy, something needs to be done to increase the supply. What's the alternative to $12 billion nuclear plants? Waiting 50 years until all the oil and coal are severely depleted? That will turn that $12 billion plant into a $95 billion plant.
Can't say I understand the relationship between plants and utilites. A gas, electric, or nuclear power plant sends energy to utility companies... who then supply the homeowners? A utility company will buy energy from the cheapest sources for it's customers. If so, then nuclear powered electricity, from that new $12 billion plant, would have to be competitively priced... no?
Also, your link was a bit of a tease. It provides the first paragraph of the Wall Street Journal article. To read the remainder I have to order a subscription. You getting kickbacks?
Here in New York State we now have more forested land than in the last 150 years. Gov't regulation, high taxes and a general anti-business environment have put hundreds of farms into foreclosure. The abandon farms then grow up to forests. Great for the deer and the birds...not so great for the humans. Unless you are a rich environmental lawyer who can pick up country land cheap for your vacation home.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Yeah, Rupert Murdock sends me a check every three days.
Here's a free version of the article.
New Wave of Nuclear Plants Faces High Costs
Thirty-three percent of the total land area in the United States is forested. This compares to 46 percent forested at the time of European settlement. Between 1600 and 1920, 13 percent of the land area (29 percent of the forested area) was lost to clearing for agriculture and towns. Most of this clearing occurred between 1850 and 1910. By far the largest part was cleared for farming. Cities actually occupy a very small percentage of the total land area.
Today, the United States has about the same area of forestland as it did in 1920, even though there has been a 143 percent increase in population between then and today. There are two main reasons why the area of land in crops has remained stable since 1920. First, in 1910 about one-quarter of the land in crops was used to produce food for horses and other draft animals. The advent of the automobile and tractor made it possible to use that land to produce food for people instead. Second, advances in technology, chemistry, and genetics have made it possible to produce much more food on the same amount of land.
Forests have been a major feature of planet Earth ever since trees evolved from smaller plants more than 300 million years ago. Today, 29.6 percent of the world's land area is covered by forest. The area of forest cover has changed over time as climate changed, as ice ages came and went, and more recently as the human population cleared large areas of forest for food production. During the rise of civilization, 40 percent of the forest cover that existed 5,000 years ago has been converted to farms and cities. Most of this deforestation has occurred during the past 200 years to grow the food for a rapidly rising population.
As of the year 2000, the world's forest cover was 3.9 billion hectares (9.8 billion acres) or 29.6 percent of the total land area of 13.1 billion hectares (32.8 billion acres).
So actually the use of the automobile and the tractor have kept down the amount of deforestation. If we all used animals for transport and farm-work, the forests would basically be gone, and we've all read how much CO2 the trees of the forests absorb. If the forests were eliminated there might be higher CO2 in the atmosphere than even today!
If we didn't have fossil fuels for energy and trucks for transport, people would not be able to live in compact cities. Cities actually keep people from having an even greater impact on the environment. If everyone had to provide for themselves, every family would need 50-100 acres, so they could grow their own food, grow feed for the animals, and have some trees to cut for building materials and firewood. There would be no land left for national parks and such, and most of the game that exist today would be wiped out either for food, or their habitats would be used by humans.
8:00 AM EPA Roundtable (News Conference)
Description: EPA Leadership Roundtable
Sponsored by:EPA
Location: First Amendment Lounge
10:00 AM OISM (News Conference)
Description: MEDIA ADVISORY: Dr. Arthur Robinson (OISM) to release names of over 30,000 scientists rejecting global warming hypothesis
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM)
Who: Dr. Arthur Robinson of the OISM
What: release of names in OISM "Petition Project"
When: 10:00am on Monday May 19
Where: Holeman Lounge at the National Press Club, 529 14th St., NW, Washington, DC
Why: the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM's Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of "settled science" and an overwhelming "consensus" in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science -- including 9,021 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not "skeptics."
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460