Global Warning is Very Real

[jpn of Seattle]

Here are 32 separate predictions, 27 of which failed completely, 1 was accurate enough to claim as a win for the people who programmed the senario but it is entirely unclear whether human beings are responsible or whether it was just a lucky guess, and since this list was published, the trend that arctic ice has taken has been the opposite of their prediction anyway so it didn't hold, and the results of 4 were so ambiguous so as to be intederminable.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

I looked at the very first analysis. The source used to refute it is Richard S. Lindzen:

Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." [3]

In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout.[/I][/B] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen

So he won't bet with his money straight up, but he'll gladly toss the dice with our future.

The list you linked to is from a web site by Warwick Hughes, a "free lance earth scientist from Australia." I wonder if that means that he has--be still my beating heart--an undergraduate degree in science!!!!!
At the top of his web site is the very unscientific boast: "Exposing situations where unsound science is used to prop up fashionable and expensive policy notions, usually policy coloured a shade of Green."

Doesn't exactly sound like an open-minded scientist to me.

 

[jpn of Seattle]

Here are 32 separate predictions, 27 of which failed Contrary to what your handlers tell you, the grant money available from oil companies is a very tiny percentage of the money available from organizations looking for political power via AGW theory.

So you assert.

January 3, 2007
Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3–A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

=======================================

Oil industry targets EU climate policy
· US lobby seeks to derail Kyoto measures
· Documents show plan to sway post-2012 agenda
David Adam in Montreal The Guardian, Thursday December 8 2005
Lobbyists funded by the US oil industry have launched a campaign in Europe aimed at derailing efforts to tackle greenhouse gas pollution and climate change.

Documents obtained by Greenpeace and seen by the Guardian reveal a systematic plan to persuade European business, politicians and the media that the EU should abandon its commitments under the Kyoto protocol, the international agreement that aims to reduce emissions that lead to global warming. The disclosure comes as United Nations climate change talks in Montreal on the future of Kyoto, the first phase of which expires in 2012, enter a critical phase. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/dec/08/greenpolitics.europeanunion

=========================================

Foes of global warming theory have energy ties

By JEFF NESMITH
COX NEWS SERVICE

WASHINGTON -- Non-profit organizations with ties to energy interests are promoting a controversial new study as proof that prevailing views of global warming are wrong.

The research was underwritten by the American Petroleum Institute, the trade association of the world's largest oil companies. Two of the five authors are scientists who have been linked to the coal industry and have received support from the ExxonMobil Foundation. Two others, who are affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, also have the title of "senior scientists" with a Washington-based organization supported by ExxonMobil Corp. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/124642_warming02.html

 

[jpn of Seattle]

I didn't give up. It is clear that you are out of your depth and unable to actually discuss the issue. At best, you can cut and paste information from other sites that you admittedly don't understand any more than the initial information I provided. So what is the point?

By the way, the experiment is valid. Sorry you don't grasp it.

You don't have a clue. Your experiment called for changing the atmosphere inside a greenhouse or car from a normal mix of gasses to all CO2 and then measure the temperature. You boldly predicted that there would be no measurable difference between the two gas mixtures. According to you, this would prove that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't really affect global temperatures. Here's exactly what you wrote, pasted from page 3:

Here is a small experiment that you can do yourself to see for yourself that the greenhouse effect with regard to atmosphere is just so much "hot air". If you have a greenhouse great, if you don't use your car. The experiment won't hurt anything. Get yourself a tank of CO2 or any other gas you care to try alone or in combiniation with any other gas.

On a bright sunny day, with either your greenhouse or your car completely closed, take a temperature reading inside. Then using a hose, pump the gas of your choice into the car until you have whatever percentage you choose upto and including 100%. Wait a while and then take another temperature reading. You will see that it hasn't chaged as a result of the nature of the atmosphere. The second law of thermodynamics predicts this.

Now, if you were able to pressurize the interior of your greenhouse considerably above the normal 14 psi, you would see an increase in temperature regardless of what gas or combination of gasses you had in your car. The second law of thermodynamics also predicts this.

Hey, genius.

Yo, Einstein.

They call it the "greenhouse effect" because a greenhouse makes a good model of how the atmosphere warms the Earth. Greenhouse gasses emit infared radiation, but then trap some of it. This makes the Earth warmer than it otherwise would be.
When they use a greenhouse as a model, IT'S THE GLASS that plays the role of the atmosphere. Changing the mix of gases within the greenhouse is beside the point.

Get it?

Here, let me try it this way. If you want to run your "little experiment," but this time in a way that actually models the greenhouse effect, take a temperature of a greenhouse with some windows open. Then close windows while taking temperatures. As more and more windows close, the temperature increases. Closing the windows mimics the process of pumping more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

Geeze. You've had half a week to think about this, and still stubbornly persist with your bizarre "little experiment."

Wow. The power of ideology...

 

[vyo476]

Sure, I will get you some links.

Thanks. I'm doing some looking myself, too.

 

[jpn of Seattle]

Sure, I will get you some links. For obvious reasons, such stories don't make the big news, but I will dig some up for you. In the meantime, here is an interview conducted with Professor Pat Michaels, Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. Sherwood Idso, Professor Tom Wigley, and Professor Reginald Newell on the topic of funding.

This is not just a group of skeptics. They are well respected.

Yes indeed. Among the global warming deniers, that is.

Heck, let's just take the first one, Pat Michaels:

"Writing in Harpers Magazine in 1995, author Ross Gelbspan noted that "Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by Western Fuels."

"Michaels has written papers claiming that satellite temperature data shows no global warming trend. But he got this result by cutting the data off after 1996. (Every year after 1996 the satellite measurement showed warming.) Another paper made the bizarre claim that the temperature increases were meaningless because they correlated closely to GDP, without explaining how the GDP caused the increase warming. (A more likely explanation is that high-GDP countries tend to be at higher lattitudes, where global warming has the most impact).

"Peter Gleick, a conservation analyst and president of the Oakland-based Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, said "Pat Michaels is not one of the nation's leading researchers on climate change. On the contrary, he is one of a very small minority of nay-sayers who continue to dispute the facts and science about climate change in the face of compelling, overwhelming, and growing evidence." [7]

"Michaels responded by threatening to sue. (Michaels had gotten another scientist to withdraw similar remarks.)[8] But Gleick stood by his statement and others have joined him.

"Dr. John Holdren of Harvard University told the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, "Michaels is another of the handful of US climate-change contrarians... He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science." [9]

"Dr. Tom Wigley, lead author of parts of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and one of the world's leading climate scientists, was quoted in the book "The Heat is On" (Gelbspan, 1998, Perseus Publishing): "Michaels' statements on [the subject of computer models] are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation… Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading.""
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_Michaels

 

[vyo476]

Still, JPN, you have to respect what Newell had to say, especially from a purely scientific point of view. He seemed to me to be a bewildered researcher who was doing his job and got hamstrung for doing it right.

And in case you're wondering about his credentials...

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2003/newell.html

I'd be very interested to read anything else he's written on the subject. I checked on Amazon.com but it doesn't appear as though he has any major published works. I've logged his name though and I'll go looking for more later.

I suppose my biggest problem with the scientific side of the debate on global warming is that I've never seen both sides talk about it at once. Most of what I've seen (granted, very little - it isn't a topic I've researched in much depth) is extremely one-sided. It would be illuminating to find a debate/discussion/meeting of the minds between the "naysayers" and the "alarmists" - preferably the more moderate ones from both sides to avoid useless discourse. Does anyone know if anything like that exists out there?

 

[ilikeboobs]

http://www.ncpa.org/globalwarming/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf

Here's some science. And it refutes the stupid argument that our country will be underwater. The DEBATE IS OVER!!!!

Now we've got scientists saying that global warming will actually be good for the planet - something al gore insists is a fallacy. I hate mexicans.

 

[palerider]

So you assert.

Yeah, are you number challenged?

Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion

Wow!! A whole 16 million? Compare that to the 3 billion put up by the president of virgin records. Which do you believe would buy more dishonesty?

 

[palerider]

They call it the "greenhouse effect" because a greenhouse makes a good model of how the atmosphere warms the Earth. Greenhouse gasses emit infared radiation, but then trap some of it. This makes the Earth warmer than it otherwise would be.

Sorry guy. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says it just aint so. And I would be interested in hearing about how CO2 or any other greenhouse gas "emits" anything.

When they use a greenhouse as a model, IT'S THE GLASS that plays the role of the atmosphere. Changing the mix of gases within the greenhouse is beside the point.

That is the point. It is the glass that is responsible for the green house effect, not the gas. Unless you believe that there is a giant pane of glass surrounding the earth, the greenhouse effect isn't what it is claimed to be.

Get it?

Yeah, I get it. You are an individual who admits to having no science background that has bought some bogus information and feels the need to rail against anything, or anyone who contradicts it.

 

[Popeye]

Yeah, are you number challenged?



Wow!! A whole 16 million? Compare that to the 3 billion put up by the president of virgin records. Which do you believe would buy more dishonesty?

Organizations associated with, or funded by Exxon Mobil. I think it goes without saying, that anything that comes from these organizations has to be taken with a grain of salt. Almost all of these groups dispute mans influence on global warming, some of them blatantly, in one way or another. In fact, it's virtually impossible to find an individual or organization, skeptical of climate change, without ties to the fossil fuel industry. What a coincidence.


60/Sixty Plus Association
Accuracy in Academia
Accuracy in Media
Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty
Africa Fighting Malaria
Air Quality Standards Coalition
Alexis de Tocqueville Institution
Alliance for Climate Strategies
American Coal Foundation
American Conservative Union Foundation
American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research
American Council on Science and Health
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies
American Friends of the Institute for Economic Affairs
American Legislative Exchange Council
American Petroleum Institute
American Policy Center
American Recreation Coalition
American Spectator Foundation
Americans for Tax Reform
Arizona State University Office of Cimatology
Aspen Institute
Association of Concerned Taxpayers
Atlantic Legal Foundation
Atlas Economic Research Foundation
Blue Ribbon Coalition
Capital Legal Foundation
Capital Research Center and Greenwatch
Cato Institute
Center for American and International Law
Center for Environmental Education Research
Center for Security Policy
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise
Center for the New West
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Centre for the New Europe
Chemical Education Foundation
Citizens for A Sound Economy and CSE Educational Foundation
Citizens for the Environment and CFE Action Fund
Clean Water Industry Coalition
Climate Research Journal
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Communications Institute
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Congress of Racial Equality
Consumer Alert
Cooler Heads Coalition
Council for Solid Waste Solutions
DCI Group
Defenders of Property Rights
Earthwatch Institute
ECO or Environmental Conservation Organization
European Enterprise Institute
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment
Fraser Institute
Free Enterprise Action Institute
Free Enterprise Education Institute
Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation
George C. Marshall Institute
George Mason University, Law and Economics Center
Global Climate Coalition
Great Plains Legal Foundation
Greening Earth Society
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
Heartland Institute
Heritage Foundation
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University
Hudson Institute
Illinois Policy Institute
Independent Commission on Environmental Education
Independent Institute
Institute for Biospheric Research
Institute for Energy Research
Institute for Regulatory Science
Institute for Senior Studies
Institute for the Study of Earth and Man
Institute of Humane Studies, George Mason University
Interfaith Stewardship Alliance
International Council for Capital Formation
International Policy Network - North America
International Republican Institute
James Madison Institute
Junkscience.com
Landmark Legal Foundation
Lexington Institute
Lindenwood University
Mackinac Center
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
Media Institute
Media Research Center
Mercatus Center, George Mason University
Mountain States Legal Foundation
National Association of Neighborhoods
National Black Chamber of Commerce
National Center for Policy Analysis
National Center for Public Policy Research
National Council for Environmental Balance
National Environmental Policy Institute
National Legal Center for the Public Interest
National Mining Association
National Policy Forum
National Wetlands Coalition
National Wilderness Institute
New England Legal Foundation
Pacific Legal Foundation
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy
Peabody Energy
Property and Environment Research Center, formerly Political Economy Research Center
Public Interest Watch
Reason Foundation
Reason Public Policy Institute
Science and Environmental Policy Project
Seniors Coalition
Shook, Hardy and Bacon LLP
Small Business Survival Committee
Southeastern Legal Foundation
Statistical Assessment Service (STATS)
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station
Texas Public Policy Foundation
The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Inc.
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy
The Justice Foundation (formerly Texas Justice Foundation)
The Locke Institute
United for Jobs
University of Oklahoma Foundation, Inc.
US Russia Business Council
Virginia Institute for Public Policy
Washington Legal Foundation
Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy
Western Fuels
World Affairs Councils of America
World Climate Report

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php

 

[jpn of Seattle]

Sorry guy. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says it just aint so. And I would be interested in hearing about how CO2 or any other greenhouse gas "emits" anything.

Wrong word. It permits infared radiation to pass through it, but then traps it. See? When you're wrong, it's possible to admit it. Try it sometime. I've given you ample opportunities to admit to your mistakes, including your absurd "little experiment."

That is the point. It is the glass that is responsible for the green house effect, not the gas. Unless you believe that there is a giant pane of glass surrounding the earth, the greenhouse effect isn't what it is claimed to be.

Oh! So that's why you changed gases inside the greenhouse. To prove that the glass is the key factor. How original! Tell me, do you always choose irrelevant variables to change in your "little experiments" while keeping the key factors unchanged? How original!

Yeah, I get it. You are an individual who admits to having no science background that has bought some bogus information and feels the need to rail against anything, or anyone who contradicts it.

Many would say that undergraduate degrees are actually quite similar to "having no science background" when discussing highly complex issues such as this. That's why I don't pretend to know more than I do, unlike you. Embarrassingly, you demonstrated the problem of putting on airs by proposing a ridiculously flawed "little experiment" not worthy of a high school student. Oops!

I bought "some bogus information"? Well, one of us did. And I'm very comfortable with having the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, and others on my side while you scrounge your right-wing web sites for something to back the rantings of the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

 

[jpn of Seattle]

It would be illuminating to find a debate/discussion/meeting of the minds between the "naysayers" and the "alarmists" - preferably the more moderate ones from both sides to avoid useless discourse. Does anyone know if anything like that exists out there?

Your opportunity for such a forum is probably past. Twenty years ago there may have been sufficient disagreement within the general scientific community to have a good debate among honest and informed scientists.

But every day the science becomes more and more solid regarding global warming. There is really very little serious doubt concerning the basics of global warming, the protestations of the right wing fever swamp notwithstanding.
There is plenty of interesting work to be done--indeed, these scientists are simply too busy to waste time on foolishness.

 

[palerider]

Wrong word. It permits infared radiation to pass through it, but then traps it. See? When you're wrong, it's possible to admit it. Try it sometime. I've given you ample opportunities to admit to your mistakes, including your absurd "little experiment."

What are you talking about? You are the one who said that CO2 "emits" radiation. And it doesn't trap it. Familiarize yourself with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Oh! So that's why you changed gases inside the greenhouse. To prove that the glass is the key factor. How original! Tell me, do you always choose irrelevant variables to change in your "little experiments" while keeping the key factors unchanged? How original!

Pointless to talk to you. It is clear that you don't have even the smallest grasp of the subject.

Many would say that undergraduate degrees are actually quite similar to "having no science background" when discussing highly complex issues such as this. That's why I don't pretend to know more than I do, unlike you. Embarrassingly, you demonstrated the problem of putting on airs by proposing a ridiculously flawed "little experiment" not worthy of a high school student. Oops!

Who would those "many" be? Perhaps those whith no degree in the hard sciences at all? And the "greenhouse effect" isn't a highly complex issue. It is quite simple and straight forward. As is much of the AGW debate. The attempt to make it highly complex is no more than a smoke screen created by the AGW proponents to disguise the bad science they are trying to terrify people like you.

By the way, that "high school" experiment is all that is needed to show that you are wrong. Sorry it was so easy, but then you really didn't have a chance. You are just a parrott.

I bought "some bogus information"? Well, one of us did. And I'm very comfortable with having the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, and others on my side while you scrounge your right-wing web sites for something to back the rantings of the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

Maybe you should review the track record of the national academy of sciences, and nasa. Their record on the matter of AGW doesn't warrant much trust. How often can an organization be wrong, in your opinion, and still deserve blind trust?

And your circumstantial ad homenim with regard to the source of material instead of any attempt to rebutt the material itself highlights the weakness of your position. Of course, how strong can a parrott's position be?

 

[palerider]

Organizations associated with, or funded by Exxon Mobil. I think it goes without saying, that anything that comes from these organizations has to be taken with a grain of salt. Almost all of these groups dispute mans influence on global warming, some of them blatantly, in one way or another. In fact, it's virtually impossible to find an individual or organization, skeptical of climate change, without ties to the fossil fuel industry. What a coincidence.

You would be funny if you weren't so tragic. Exxon Mobile has put up about 19 million over the past decade funding "skeptics" according to newsweek magazine. 19 million over the past decade while in the same time, proponents of manmade global warming have forked over 50 BILLION dollars.

If money is an issue, then whose word should be taken with a BLOCK OF SALT?

 

[palerider]

Your opportunity for such a forum is probably past. Twenty years ago there may have been sufficient disagreement within the general scientific community to have a good debate among honest and informed scientists.

Well, you get partial credit. Back when climate scientists lived in lower middle class neighborhoods and drove 3 year old chevys, you might could have gotten a reasonably honest debate because they really didn't have much to loose. Today, however, those same climate scientists are living at upscale addresses, driving new BMWs and sporting wives with brand new boob jobs. They have a great deal to loose now if the fears of AGW go away.

But every day the science becomes more and more solid regarding global warming. There is really very little serious doubt concerning the basics of global warming, the protestations of the right wing fever swamp notwithstanding.

So says the parrott. Pull your head out of whoever's a$$ you presently have it imbedded in and attempt to learn something. The "consensus" you seem to believe so strongly in doesn't, and never has existed. In fact, you would have a hard time finding a scientist who supports AGW theory who doesn't depend upon grant money for his daily bread and those who depend upon grant money for their living are in the very tiny minority. The "consensus" is a fabrication created by, supported by, and sustained by the media.

An ever increasing number of once, hard core AGW supporters and names often quoted by the AGW crowd are jumping off the bandwagon. Here are a few recent examples:

Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" “


Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.”


Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye.” Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence.


Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical.”


Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other side in the early 1990's when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”


Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.” “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything,” Bellamy added. Bellamy’s conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy’s long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy “won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain’s peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest.”


Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.”


Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”

(continued)