Global Warming; Alias Climate Change
http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere". (OISM)
There are several claims that large numbers of scientists do not agree with the theory of climate change, the best known of which is a petition organised by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (the OISM petition). This petition now appears to be signed by over 32,000 people with a BSc or higher qualification. The signatories agree with these statements:
• The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
• There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
No evidence has ever been offered to support the first statement, and the second statement is in flat contradiction with the scientists who study climate change. There are also valid issues regarding the methodology:
• The organisers have never revealed how many people they canvassed (so the response rate is unknown) nor have they revealed the sampling methodology, an ironic omission considering how much fuss is made about scientists being candid and making public their methods and data.
• The petition is, in terms of climate change science, rather out of date.
That’s only the tip of the “melting” iceberg of scams the IPCC is involved in using the greatest scamster of all, Al Gore, as their figurehead who then makes squillions insider-trading carbon credits through his own bank of carbon credit companies.
The scam will continue as long as people like Bob Brown can beguile opportunistic crooks like Julia Gillard.
The IPCC rejects any report that doesn’t claim anthropogenic warming, and always throws in a few goodies like its recently discredited, “the Himalayas will soon be devoid of snow” nonsense.
Figures are massaged, graphs are inverted and reports are altered in an attempt to convince the gullible of their expertise in “climate science”. “Climate” can be a science but these charlatans are certainly not scientists!
Long lunches are spent inventing emotive doomsday phrases designed for you to elect Green-sympathetic governments, like Julia Gillard’s, that will happily give them billions more of your taxes.
There is no global warming, it would be good if there was, but both ice-caps have increased in area, Europe and the US have just recorded three years of record cold conditions, atmospheric CO2 levels have continued to vary by the normal 0.1 per cent, US “Tornado Alley” had 30 per cent fewer tornados last season, there are no tidal increases anywhere and the climate is still changing normally in its own erratic way, as it always has.
The only regulators of the world’s CO2 levels, the oceans, the sun and volcanos, are the only regulators IPCC reports don’t account for.
Thank God the Abbott Government only pays lip service to this global warming myth.
Reading between their lines you can see they don’t have their hearts in it.”
NASA is not sending rockets to the moon anymore. The front page on their website is a graph about global warming. When did NASA switch from space research/travel to progressive propaganda? Was the Obama Administration the one who changed the purpose of NASA?
In an article here, former NASA Director Charles Bolden says that Obama told him that Muslim Outreach was his priority, “… inspire children to learn math and science, expand international relationships and “perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering.”
NASA lists the IPCC as one of its scientific sources proving human-caused global warming. Knowing that the IPCC is a phony organization makes the entire website and NASA itself untrustworthy and irrelevant.
In conclusion,
“The CO2-induced global warming extinction hypothesis claims that as the world warms in response to the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content, many species of plants and animals will not be able to migrate either poleward in latitude or upward in elevation fast enough to avoid extinction as they try to escape the stress imposed by the rising temperature. With respect to plants, however, we have shown that as long as the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration rises in tandem with its temperature, most of them will not “feel the heat,” as their physiology will change in ways that make them better adapted to warmer conditions. Hence, although earth’s plants will likely spread poleward and upward at the cold-limited boundaries of their ranges in response to a warming-induced opportunity to do so, their heat-limited boundaries will probably remain pretty much as they are now or shift only slightly.
Consequently, in a world of rising atmospheric CO2 concentration, the ranges of most of earth’s plants will likely expand if the planet continues to warm, making plant extinctions even less likely than they are currently.
Animals should react much the same way. In response to concurrent increases in atmospheric temperature and CO2 concentration, they will likely migrate poleward and upward, where cold temperatures prevented them from going in the past, as they follow earth’s plants. Also as with earth’s plants, the heat-limited boundaries of their ranges should in many cases be little affected, as has been observed in several of the real-world studies that have been wrongly cited as providing evidence for impending species extinctions, or their entire ranges may simply shift with the rising temperature, as has been observed in many real-world studies of marine ecosystems.
To summarize, both theory and observation paint the same picture. A goodly portion of earth’s plants and animals should actually expand their ranges and gain a stronger foothold on the planet as the atmosphere’s temperature and CO2 concentration continue to rise. If the air’s CO2 content were suddenly to stop increasing, however, the biosphere could find itself facing a significant challenge, as the world’s plants would cease acquiring the extra physiological protection against heat stress that is afforded them by rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Consequently, the end result of curtailing anthropogenic CO2 emissions might well be just the opposite of what many people are hoping to accomplish by encouraging that policy, i.e., many species might actually be driven to extinction, rather than being saved from such a fate.”