No, global warming is not a 'media scam,' John

I always laugh out loud when I hear the words “majority” or “consensus” or “everybody” now knows that humans are destroying the planet and causing global warming. Attached is information about the Site Wave project which has been signed by 17,000 (SEVENTEEN THOUSAND) US scientists who say there is concrete evidence that humans are NOT destroying the planet. The full list of scientists who signed the petition can be found at: sitewave.net or at oism.org Those so called “scientists” who appear on the major news media programs typically have dubious credentials, or those credentials are never provided. When news media outlets quote the “experts”, such as Sports Illustrated, Rick Telander of the Sun-Times, Neil Steinberg of the Sun-Times, or others, they never name a source. It is always “everybody”, “consensus”, “majority”, etc. Show us the sources and credentials. Again, there is a list of 17,000 (SEVENTEEN THOUSAND) scientists who have posted their names and credentials for all to see. Each and every one of these people states that humans are not the cause of global warming. The whole issue about “Global Warming” is in fact about stewardship and spending monetary resources properly. Will spending the BILLIONS of dollars that the “global warming” alarmists are asking us to spend improve the welfare of human life better than applying just a small fraction of that (MILLIONS) towards global hunger and housing for the homeless? Second of all, I doubt that humans have the capacity to destroy God's creation. When an oil spill happens, the alarmists and news media report that “this will be a catastrophe for years to come”. But, two years after oil spills, the beaches are clear because nature heals itself. 10 years after bombing Hiroshima, the radiation was gone. We can not destroy our planet, despite what the alarmists are saying. Dr. Fred Singer, physicist and professor from the University of Virginia, on global warming. Well, the climate is warming. That's what the temperature indicators show or the thermometers show this. But the cause of warming, that's another story. It could either be natural, as we think it is, or it could be manmade. And we find that there is really no evidence to support the manmade hypothesis. Dennis Avery, Singer’s co-author of the new book on the subject “Unstoppable Global Warming,” then gave some historical perspective: The Romans wrote in the 1st century about growing wine grapes in Britain. Then, during the Dark Ages, it was too cold. During the medieval period, the Britons themselves wrote about growing wine grapes in Britain. And then, for 650 years, during the little ice age, it was too cold. After 1950, they started trying to grow wine grapes again in Britain. They're now up to two years out of 10, with a little help from some tricky hybrids. So this tells us, a, there's a cycle and, b, the temperatures today aren't yet as warm as they were 650 years ago or 2,000 years ago. Is warming is tied to humans? Dr. Singer’s response is: There has never been a case of human activity causing a global warming. And, of course, sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age. In fact, sea levels have been rising about 400 feet, since about 18,000 years ago. I don't think Al Gore thinks he's lying, but I don't think he understands the problem really well. For example, when he talks about glaciers melting, of course they're melting. You would expect them to melt when the climate is warming. But that doesn't tell you why the climate is warming…He's confusing consequences and the cause. He's making a logical error. What about CO-2 increased levels? Are not they “incontrovertible proof that the behaviors man has led to what we're talking about here.” Avery responded: Not at all. In the 1980s, we dug up long ice cores from both Greenland and the Antarctic. They showed a moderate, natural, 1,500-year cycle. We've had 600 warmings in the last million years. And the ice cores and the sea bed sediment show this. And none of the past has found CO-2 coinciding with temperature change. In fact, Mr. Gore, in his Antarctic scenario, says temperature and CO- 2 have moved radically and together through the last four ice ages, and that's true. What he doesn't tell us is that the temperatures changed 800 years before the CO-2 levels. Dr. Singer also had an opinion on this CO-2 issue that seems lost on all of the global warmingists: Well, CO-2, of course, is not a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring gas in the atmosphere. In fact, it's essential to life. It's what all plants use in order to grow. Without CO-2, there would be no life on Earth. So let's get that very clear: It is not a pollutant. It has increased. And it is undoubtedly the case that the human activities have led to the increase. But that doesn't prove it's the cause of warming. You see, it's just a correlation. And, for example, during much of the last century, the climate was cooling, while CO-2 was rising, so how do you explain that? The global warmingists don’t explain that, and the media don’t question them about it. In fact, that’s the point. What about melting glaciers? No one knows what causes glaciers to advance and retreat – the physics are complex and much more is involved than simply air temperature. Climatologist Pat Michaels points out, for example, that, “Glaciers [in Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska] have been receding ever since John Muir first publicized them in the 19th century” – well before the advent of significant manmade greenhouse gas emissions. We keep hearing about “scientists all agree that global warming is coming”. But again, only a handful of scientists are ever interviewed. More importantly, how many of these scientists believe that humans are causing this global warming problem. Dr. Arthur Robinson, started a petition drive to see how many scientists really believe that humans are responsible for global warming. The signers of the petitions were saying the following statement, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." And how many scientists signed the agreement saying that humans are not responsible? 17,000!! That is correct, SEVENTEEN THOUSAND scientists signed an agreement saying that humans are not responsible for creating global warming. The list includes climatologists, meteorologists and astrophysicists like Richard Lindzen, William Gray, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, and Craig Idso. Context of letter from Dr. Fred Seitz, Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. and President Emeritus, Rockefeller University. The full list of scientists who signed the petition can be found at: The United States is

Well, 30 years ago the same liberal media and liberals shouted Global Cooling. I guess we saved earth from the Big Freeze. I am a conservative engineer with conservative political views. What I fail to understand is how a few folks really feel (not think) that man can actually affect the earth's climate long-term. Perhaps my lack of similar feeling is that I believe in the existence of a higher being, a creator. Sorry, my fault -- and my apologies to those of you who evolved from apes. Is there global warming? Sure! Can man control it? Let's all hold our breath and see.

First, a few random points: I'm an environmentalist who has always supported nuclear power. "Zero Population Growth" hasn't died as an issue or an organization; it's now Population Connection. And Mitt Romney has shown that he doesn't have any firm and consistent positions (surprise, he's a politician). The debate isn't over on evolution. The debate isn't over on relativity. The debate isn't over on the germ theory of disease. There are always going to be some educated and intelligent people who will choose to hold an opinion contrary to the generally accepted paradigm; sometimes they're right, but most of the time they're cranks. (From Wikipedia, a crank holds some belief which the vast majority of his contemporaries would consider false, and clings to this belief in the face of all counterarguments or evidence presented to him.) If your criterion for acceptance is unanimity among everyone who can coherently state an opinion about it, then you probably won't accept anything.

What''s weird about eco nuts like John is that they probably also opposed nuclear power. If the hadn’t fought nuclear power 30 year ago, we wouldn''t be talking about global warming today. And how about the "environmentalists" (Mitt Romney comes to mind) who opposed wind farms in the Atlantic Ocean because they affect views from Cape Cod? Just complaining isn’t enough.