From where?... New Zealand. Not quite a Bastion for conservatives

Global warming debunked
By ANDREW SWALLOW - The Timaru Herald
Saturday, 19 May 2007

Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.

Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained.

"We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said.

A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it.

"It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said.

Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.

"That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then," he said.

"We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates."

Yet the Greens continued to use phrases such as "The planet is groaning under the weight of CO2" and Government policies were about to hit industries such as farming, he warned.

"The Greens are really going to go after you because you put out 49 per cent of the countries emissions. Does anybody ask 49 per cent of what? Does anybody know how small that number is?

"It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt," he said.

-- Modified on 5/19/2007 9:26:48 AM

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics.  The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming.  

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=

Not bullshit, just the everyday work of scientists.

When emperical data contradicts or fails to support hypotheses and theories, hypotheses and theories are revised.

But remember, scientific belief is always held provisionally, as new methods and new instrumentation make the collection of new data possible.

These scientists have changed their minds.  They may change them again.  That's science for you.

Any?

Or are there only scientists and climatologists who have NOT had their work or writings judged and reviewed by those who have been published in the prominent and accepted science journals saying this?

Will we all be dead? 5 yrs.? 20? 30?  At what point are they going to find a new apoclypse when people get bored with this one? I remember learning how we would all be burned alive from the ozone layer. I thought we were entering an Ice Age 10 or 15 years ago?  We should have also run out of fossil fuels 20 years ago.  We keep drilling it faster than we can refine it.

The important thing to remember is that we are all going to die horrible deaths very soon unless we listen to our friendly, neighborhood screwball liberal.  They hold the key to our slavation.

"That ought to end the argument, there and then"...wow, guess he told US off!  I will ignore all those other scientists, now...because this guy said to!  After all, I don't want to be involved in a witch hunt.  Oh, goodness me, no!

Water vapor doesn't absorb infrared in the same wavelengths CO2 does.

I'll tell you, insurance and re-insurance companies, with money on the line are betting on global warming.  They've either raised their rates incredibly for homeowners insurance on the coasts, and they've lowered them in the landlocked states.  

In fact, according to the Economist, the government in Florida now taxes the people to support homeowners insurance. Otherwise, houses are uninsurable there.

http://community.emeraldcoast.com/onset?id=15643&template=article.html

A professor Richard Lindzen - currently the Alfred Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT.... AND former lead author for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...

And HE SAYS:
"Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age."

He has published papers on Hadley circulation, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, hydrodynamic instability, mid-latitude weather, global heat transport, the water cycle, and their roles in climate change, ice ages, seasonal atmospheric effects.  He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Science and Economic Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy. He previously held positions at the University of Chicago and Harvard University, and was a contributor to Chapter 4 of the "IPCC Second Assessment", "Climate Change 1995". He is known for pioneering the study of ozone photochemistry, and advised several student theses on the subject.

I guess he is too stupid to really understand the brilliance of an ALBERT GORE.  

There is MONEY to be made in whoring your scientific expertise to those who benefit from specific technical directions.  Please be advised that scientists will say or do just about anything for $$$!  


-- Modified on 5/19/2007 9:04:15 PM

oil refining technology is basically unchanged in what?  40-50 years?  and we've not built any new refineries in this country in what?  40-50 years?  Which is why, Katrina caused an increase in gasoline prices...  America?  want more assurance of a stable oil supply...?  allow drilling off the CA coast, permit mining of oil shale in Colorado and Wyoming.... Permit Drilling in the Alaskan wilderness - increase refining technology and build new refineries...  and quit crying about every little thing.

we build on sandy sea coasts - destroying the plants necessary to hold the sandy soil in place... and right in the path of storms that drive tide surges that erode beaches... Then we wonder why the beach erodes!  lol!!  kinda like the government of NO not taking care of the levees.... and then wondering why the storm surge overpowered them! lol!!!  Dumb.

We fix blame, on faulty governmental leaders WE elect, on faulty infrastructures that we fail to build right and maintain the first time and on every inanimate physical thing and every other living thing and person - except ourselves... really whining has become THE national pastime.  when we are not into hating ourselves...

NO ONE on the "minority" side of the man made global warming issue is trying to end ANY agrument or debate. We will leave your side to be the sole ones trying to stifle any open discussion. This scientist is only the latest of many to offer opposition.

and state that...

Gosh, ONE guy, a computer geek, C++ programmer and designer of websites says hes wrong, so therefore, CASE CLOSED. But I won't.

Actually this absorbtion data doesn't point out (that I could find) exactly what CO2 concentrations are needed to acheive the 100% absorbtion rate in the spectral region in question of approximately 15 to 18 microns?

Also I'll counter that in the same spectral region, H2O's absorbtion rate is 50% @ 15 uMeters, increasing to 100% @ 18 uMeters. So water ALSO absorbs in this very critical window.  And the H2O concentrations (as Augie points out) are vastly greater than CO2.

-- Modified on 5/19/2007 9:57:50 PM

It only works if you don't consider that it's only a matter of retaining heat in the atmosphere for longer. Greenhouse effect doesn't prevent heat from escaping back into space, it merely slows it down.  H2O I'll give you this conversation and link:

QUOTE (AEBanner @ Jun 12 2006, 07:38 PM)
Greenhouse Gas Effect and Carbon Dioxide

I have been having some difficulty with this, so perhaps someone could please sort out any mistakes, and let me know.

Consider a vertical column of the Earth’s atmosphere based on a square of area 1 m^2.

This air column has a mass of 1.01×10^4 Kg.m^-2.

The mass of the neutron (& proton) is approximately 1.67×10^-27 Kg.
So the mass of the nitrogen molecule is 4.68×10^-26 Kg.

Therefore, the number of N2 molecules in the column is approximately 2.15×10^29.

Now, carbon dioxide is currently present at the level of about 380 ppm by volume, and so the number of CO2 molecules in our 1 m^2 column is about 8×10^25.

The absorption cross section of a molecule of CO2 for an infrared photon of 14 micrometres wavelength (the optimum) is about 5×10^-22 m^2.

Therefore, the number of CO2 molecules required to ensure 100% probability of absorption of a photon emitted from anywhere within the 1 m^2 base area is 2×10^21 molecules.

The energy of a 14 micron infrared photon is 1.34×10^-20 Joules, and so the 2×10^21 molecules providing the absorption cover can absorb 26.8 Joules.

But, there are 8×10^25 molecules of CO2 in the column, and so the 100% cover can be provided
8×10^25 / 2×10^21 times over, ie.  4×10^4 times.  So the energy which can be dealt with by the CO2 is 26.8×4×10^4 Joules, in the base area of 1 m^2.  ie  about 10^6 Joules.

Given a relaxation time of 10 microseconds for the CO2 molecule to decay from its excited state, it follows that the process just described can be repeated 10^5 times within 1 second. And so the possible power which the carbon dioxide could cope with for 100% absorption is 10^11 Watts per square metre.

However, the limit is set by the Earth’s energy balance to about 235 W.m^-2.

So the carbon dioxide is grossly oversubscribed by a factor of 4×10^8.

This means that although the original GHG effect works very well, the idea of anthropogenic “enhanced” greenhouse effect is totally non-viable as far as carbon dioxide is concerned, because there has long been far, far more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than required, and so another 30% ( or several orders ) extra will have absolutely no effect.

Aubrey E Banner, Sale, Cheshire,UK

Consider this from a PHYSICAL process point of view.

When the CO2 decays and releases the IR, SOME of it travels back to the ground, thus causing it to eventually be RE-RADIATED back up into the atmosphere.

The fact that there are less CO2 molecules ABOVE than below any other given CO2 molecule means that eventually the radiation will escape, still it is the fact that the release of the IR is omni-directional which causes the increase in CO2 concentration (to a point) to SLOW the RATE of heat loss to space.

But since we are getting a new supply of incoming energy each day, a delay in the loss of heat to space is equiv. to warming.

Still linear increases in CO2 would not translate to linear increases in atmospheric heating thus the IPCC claims it has to do with what they call the FORCING effect of CO2.

They CLAIM that the SLIGHT warming from CO2 will cause increased evaporation which will cause increased H2O in the atmosphere and it is this increase in H2O which is responsible for much of the FORCING effect of increased CO2.

There is no dissent among peer-reviewed scientists about global warming, my friend. All these supposed experts who claim to have "debunked" it haven't been judged by their peers. They simply do not have the credentials to usurp the peer-reviewed science community.

Oh and incase you forgot, the ozone layer WAS deteriorating because of what we were putting into the atmosphere -- it is precisely because we did something about it that it stopped. Thanks to the   scientists (or as you call them screw-ball liberals) we stopped putting all those CFCs into the atmosphere -- now it is repairing itself -- good for us! We fixed it. Did you forget?

We should do the same about global warming and stop being so pigheaded about it.

If so maybe you can link us to one of his peer-reviewed science papers he has had published. And maybe you can a link to the entire text of what he said when he stated the quote you posted?

You might want to get caught up on the basics of what the vast majority of credible scientists are saying. Here is a good, simple to understand illustrated chart so you don't have to read too much:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

This is where density comes in. A molecule of a greenhouse gas will absorb infrared at a certain wavelength. It will then, after a certain time, re-emit the energy. This will then be re-absorbed by a different molecule. Molecules like oxygen re-emitted quickly. The heat in the form of infrared gets passed around among the molecules in the atmosphere till it's re-emitted into space. The higher density of greenhouse gases, the longer the heat takes to leave the earth.  

You know the last point, but absorption spectrum isn't the whole story. Other questions to be asked (and for which I don't know the answer) how long does CO2 retain the heat it has absorbed? And how effectively does it absorb the wavelengths that are re-emitted from water vapor? And how well does water vapor re-absorb heat in the wavelengths CO2 emits?

As I've understood it, evidence of CO2 variance in geological prehistory correlates very strongly with pre-historical warming and cooling:

"'Reviewing the geologic records of carbon dioxide and glaciations, we found that carbon dioxide was low during periods of long-lived and widespread continental glaciations and high during other, warmer periods,' says Dr. Dana L. Royer, research associate in geosciences at Penn State."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040317074024.htm

I can site a lot of other stories about more studies. It seems it's also being well correlated in the current world:

"'The five warmest years over the last century occurred in the last eight years,' said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS. They stack up as follows: the warmest was 2005, then 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004." (From link below, as of data available in January, 2006)
   
Again, wavelength absorption cannot tell the whole story. You're not talking about completely blocking light in the infrared spectrum from escaping; you're talking about slowing down energy radiating from a system, the earth, which is constantly having energy poured into it by the sun.  

I don't have the expertise yet to properly consider these questions, but until I find the answers, global warming is very plausible to me. More plausible than the argument you have produced.

briefly...

I'm NOT a global warming "denier". Clearly the earth has been on a warming trend since the last mini ice age of the 13th to 18th century.

What I rail against are the Al Gore types that clearly and vastly overstep any of the science, even the UN's predictions.

Pair up the agenda of the Gore types, side by side with any variety of socialist agendas. The  differences are indiscernable.

I don't remember those in the Communist Manifesto.

how do you get there?  Military conquest has proven to now work.  Now there are three competing ideologies:  Religion, economics and the "unity of fear" theory....  Religion - we can see in the cry for muslim based governments, economics through globalization and the the unity of fear - accords such as the Kyoto Treaty, and the Montreal agreement - NEITHER of which is actually good for the Earth.

accomplishments that would put most to shame.

I don't know if you know how academia works.... but for him to hold the positions that he does, and to have served on the committees that he has served...including "IPCC Second Assessment", "Climate Change 1995"  as well as being published in the field of "heat transfer"!   well, I guess that he is soooo much not as good as any of your guys... who you fail to review their credentials....  I provided my guys credentials to only have you ignore the significance of them.... read my posts before you blast off!

No, this can't be true. I mean Al Gore made a movie proving beyond any doubt that global warming is caused by you and me. Surely a man of his stature would never put his universally admired credibility on the line unless it was a what the CIA calls a "slam dunk"...lol

Do you have any?

I've redacted due to TER's 8000 character limit.

1. (1965) Pure & Appl. Geophys., 62, 142-147.
2. (1965) Radiative and photochemical processes in mesospheric dynamics: Part I. Models for radiative and photochemical processes. J. Atmos. Sci., 22, 341-348.
3. (1965)  J. Atmos. Sci., 22, 469-478. [pdf]
4. (1966) Part II. Vertical propagation of long period disturbances at the equator. J. Atmos. Sci., 23, 334-343
5. (1966) Part III. Stability of a zonal vortex at midlatitudes to axially symmetric disturbances. J. Atmos. Sci., 23, 344-349. [pdf]
6. (1966) Part IV. Stability of a zonal vortex at midlatitudes to baroclinic waves. J. Atmos. Sci., 23, 350-359.
7. (1966) Mon. Wea. Rev., 94, 295-301. [pdf]
8. (1966) J. Geophys. Res., 71, 865-870.
9. (1966) J. Atmos. Sci., 23, 630-632. [pdf]
Publications.... 10. - 54.
55. R.S. Lindzen and D. Will (1973). An analytic formula for heating due to ozone absorption. J. Atmos. Sci., 30, 513-515.  
Publications  56. - 100.
Publications 101 -126.
127. (1988) CO2 feedbacks and the 100K year cycle. Meteorol. Atmos. Phys., 38, 42-49.
Publications 128. - 130.
131. R.S. Lindzen and A.Y. Hou (1988). Hadley circulations for zonally averaged heating centered off the equator. J. Atmos. Sci., 45, 2416-2427.
Publications  132. -137.
138. (1990) Some coolness concerning global warming. Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 71, 288-299.
139. (1990) Some remarks on global warming. Env. Sci. Tech., 24, 424-427.
140. (1990) A skeptic speaks out. EPA Jour., 16, 46-47.
141. (1990) Greenhouse warming: science v. consensus. in Environmental Consequences of Energy Production, proceedings of the seventeenth annual Illinois Energy Conference. Publ. by Energy Resources Center, The University of Illinois at Chicago.
142. (1990) Dynamics in Atmospheric Physics, Cambridge University Press, New York, 310pp.
Publications 143.-174.
175. Lindzen, R.S., D.-Z. Sun, E. K.-M. Chang, and P. Ioannou (1994) Properties of a troposphere with zero EPV gradients on isentropes.Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Climate Diagnostics Workshop. NTIS, US Dept. of Commerce, Springfield, VA.
176. (1994) What we know and what we don't know about global warming. pp 335-358 in International Seminar on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies - 18th Session - 1993, K. Goebel, editor, World Scientific, Singapore, 444pp.
177. (1994) Classic problems in dynamics revisited. pp 90-98 in The Life Cycles of Extratropical Cyclones, Volume 1 (Grønås, S. and M. Shapiro, Editors), Geophysical Institute, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway 286 p.
178. (1996) The importance and nature of the water vapor budget in nature and models. In Climate Sensitivity to Radiative Perturbations: Physical Mechanisms and their Validation, H. Le Treut (editor), pp. 51-66, NATO ASI Series 1: Global Environmental Change, Vol. 34, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 331p.
179. (1995) How cold would we get under CO2-less sky? Phys. Today, 48, 78-80.
180. (1996) Science and politics: global warming and eugenics. in Risks, Costs, and Lives Saved, R. Hahn, editor, Oxford University Press, New York, 267pp (Chapter 5, 85-103).
181. (1997) Can increasing atmospheric CO2 affect global climate? Proc. Natl..Acad. Sci. USA, 94, 8335-8342
Publications 182 -193
194 R.S. Lindzen, M.-D. Chou, and A.Y. Hou (2001) Does the Earth have an adaptive infrared iris? Bull. Amer. Met. Soc. 82, 417-432.
195.. Climate Dyn., 17, 479-487.
196. J. Climate, 14, 1450-1465.
197. N. Harnik and R.S. Lindzen (2000) Are TOVS temperature retrievals capable of resolving the vertical structure of stratospheric planetary waves? submitted Ann. Geophys.
198. Encyclopedia of Global Change, Environmental Change and Human Society, Volume 1, Andrew S. Goudie, editor in chief, pp 562-566, Oxford University Press, New York,710 pp.
199. Geophys. Res. Lett., 28 , 259-262.
200. Giannitsis, C. and R.S. Lindzen (2001) Non-linear saturation of vertically propagating Rossby waves. accepted J. Atmos. Sci.
201. J. Atmos. Sci., 58, 3443-3462.
202. J. Atmos. Sci., 58, 2872-2894
203. Geophys. Res. Ltrs. 29, (26 June) 10.1029/2001GL014074
204. Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 29, 10.1029/2001GL014360
205. Lindzen, R.S. (2002b) Richard J. Reed and Atmospheric Tides in A Half Century of Progress in Meteorology: A Tribute to Richard J. Reed, R. Johnson, editor, American Meteorological Society Monograph, in press.
206. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2, 99-101.
207. Lindzen, R.S., M.-D. Chou, and A.Y. Hou (2002) Comments on "No evidence for iris." Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 83, 1345-1348.
208. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2, 99-101.
209. Chou, M.-D., R.S. Lindzen, and A.Y. Hou (2002b) Comments on "The Iris hypothesis: A negative or positive cloud feedback?" J. Climate, 15, 2713-2715.
210. Bell, T. L., M.-D. Chou, R.S. Lindzen, and A.Y. Hou (2002) Response to Comment on "Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?" Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 83, 598-600
211. Lindzen, R.S. (2002c) A new approach to wave-cumulus interaction. submitted J. Atmos. Sci.
212. Lindzen, R.S., M.-D. Chou, and A.Y. Hou (2002) New results on the Iris Effect. in preparation.
213. Zurita-Gotor, P., and R.S. Lindzen (2004) "Baroclinic equilibration and the maintenance of the momentum balance. Part I: barotropic analog." J. Atmos. Sci., 61, 1469-1482
214. Zurita-Gotor, P., and R.S. Lindzen (2004) "Baroclinic equilibration and the maintenance of the momentum balance. Part II: 3-D results." J. Atmos. Sci., 61, 1483-1499. [pdf]

215. J. Climate, 15, 2566-2570
216. Lindzen, R.S. (2003) The Interaction of Waves and Convection in the Tropics. J. Atmos. Sci., 60, 3009-3020
217. J. Clim. 18, 2123-2127.
218. Kennel, C.F., R.S. Lindzen, and W. Munk (2004) William Aaron Nierenberg (1919-2000) - A biographical memoir. Biographical Memoirs of the N.A.S., 85, 1-20.
219. Zurita-Gotor, P., and R.S. Lindzen (2006) A generalized momentum framework for looking at baroclinic circulations. In press J. Atmos. Sci.
220. Zurita-Gotor, P., and R.S. Lindzen (2006) Theories of baroclinic adjustment and eddy equilibration. In Recent Results in General Circulation Theory. T. Schneider and A. Sobel, Editors. Princeton (in press).
221. Rondanelli, R., V. Thayalan, R. S. Lindzen, and M. T. Zuber (2006) Atmospheric contribution to the dissipation of the gravitational tide of Phobos on Mars. Accepted Geophys. Res. Ltrs.
222. Lindzen, R.S. (2006) Is there a basis for global warming alarm? In press in Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto (Ernesto Zedillo, editor), Yale University Press.
223. Lindzen, R.S. (2006) Quelques observations sur la répartition des juifs dans Paris intra-muros. Submitted to L’Arche.
224. Lindzen, R.S. and R. Rondanelli (2006) On the need for normalizing satellite cloud data when applying results to climate. In preparation
225. Rondanelli, R. and R.S. Lindzen (2006) Reexamination of Iris Effect using TRMM and Kwajalein Ground Radar, In Preparation.
226. Lindzen, R.S. (2006) Climate of Fear, Wall Street Journal, April 12, 2006.
227. Lindzen, R.S. (2006) There is no ‘consensus’ on global warming, Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2006.
228. Lindzen, R.S. (2006) Debunking the Myth. Business Today, 43, 66-67.
229. Robert M. Carter, C. R. de Freitas, Indur M. Goklany, David Holland & Richard S. Lindzen (2006)

would allow nuclear energy. That would go a long way toward solving a lot of problems.

And I never said Communist.

With Nazism and Communism there was a common literature, a definite goal. They had a plan to transform humankind.  

For Islam, again, you have a common literature and a religion with a militarism in its scripture. But even the fanatics will admit that the plan will only succeed if: 1) There's one God, and 2) He answers to the name of Allah.  IMHO, dream on!

For globalization there are writers who are giddy about it, but no coherent plan referred to by all it's enthusiasts. It's hard to tell whether it's free markets that are driving it (which are by definition unfettered by government) or if it's an effort to bring about a one global government.

But for Global Warming it seems to me that all you have are suspicions. I don't find them plausible.  If there were a disease pandemic, wouldn't you want some means of international cooperation to stop it?  

There are those who are skeptical about the problem, the cause, or the scope.  Most everybody thinks there is a problem now, or rather, a real phenomenon now.  IMHO, the cause and the scope are going to become clear within the decade. I'm guessing they are going to be serious.

If it were an effort to covertly "unite" humankind in fear, you should be able to find the "real plan" circulating somewhere, like the writings of Marx or the Koran. You don't have that. The only thing you have are suspicions informed by ideology.

IMHO, nothing short of an outer-space invasion is going to unite humankind under one government. Maybe our successor species can do that.      

 

From what I can gather. They've been pretty mute about it of late, but I think they've come around to being reasonable.

as far as believing in a "one world governance" - and now I quote Chirac "By acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance...."

But hey?  maybe he was talking about Renault dominance of the auto market? N'est pas?  

dude.... read stuff other than what is filtered and sorted and then fed to you.... read the texts of what is said by world leaders!  want to read some really scary stuff (and I mean stuff that makes Steven King look like the Stay Puff Marshmellow Man) - read the speaches of Calderon or Fox... believe me... you will want to know who is at the door, cause it ain't "here'sssss Johney!"

Another read that I recommend... "the Economics of Climate Change" - the Stern Review - by N. Stern.  bedtime stuff..... and I really wonder about the reality of Climate change.  But this stuff says that "hey, there is money to be made - whether there is global climate change - or not!"  as long as peeps believe there is, there is money to be made....

How quickly we forget, only 15 years ago, we were warned about a new Ice Age.... well, the climate did not change that much.... so now?  increase in temp.... it will take a few years... and perhaps we will be back to an Ice Age....  

-- Modified on 5/22/2007 7:46:24 PM

that deal with this topic... turns out he has several.  You cannot have access to them unless you are a paid member of the society that publishes the journal in which he publishes...

Remember I am the dude who wants ALL the federally funded research available to those who paid for it (namely taxpayers) on the internet for FREE!  see anyone stepping up to the plate in favor of that?  

in any event if any of the articles are of interest to you, get thee to a local university and ask for the journal - or go to the library of Congress and request access....  

this was not a dodge - the guys credentials were in question - turns out he is a pretty heavy hitting serious dude.

get real.  ya proably can't even read the titles... and that is what has you so bummed !  lol!

You want me to go and find your source for you? It is up to you to substantiate your claim, not me to go search for your sources.

you wanted "peer reviewed" pubs in his field.  I gave you several... these are legitamate publications... you can get them for about $15-30 a pop from the journals.  Understand??  read the titles.  Several deal with global warming...

AS for the direct quote - it is in the comments on authors - for the book, "The politically incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism" by Christopher Horner.