Antarctica Ice Caps GROW

[Naturalized-Texan]

Antarctica Ice Caps Grow (http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/full/050516-10.html)

Increased snowfall over a large area of Antarctica is thickening the ice sheet and slowing the rise in sea level caused by melting ice.

A satellite survey shows that between 1992 and 2003, the East Antarctic ice sheet gained about 45 billion tonnes of ice - enough to reduce the oceans' rise by 0.12 millimetres per year. The ice sheets that cover Antarctica's bedrock are several kilometres thick in places, and contain about 90% of the world's ice. But scientists fear that if they melt in substantial quantities, this will swell the oceans and cause devastation on islands and coastal lands.

{More at the link above.}

Unfortunately, the article goes on to perpetuate the lie that Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are melting as a result of global warming. The truth is that both ice sheets are thickening and have been for several years. See the links in post #3 in this thread (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=19311) for details.

[The_RANDy_Corporation]

How long before the enviro weenies say this too is bad and blame it on global warming and the policies of the Bush administration?

[The_RANDy_Corporation]

oops, they already did. Bwahahahaahahaa

[DesertFox]

Lussee if I got this straight: Because of global warming, we're getting global cooling.

If this is how things work, I'm glad I'm getting older and, by the way, can I get a pay cut at work?

[Bob_Arctor]

Lussee if I got this straight: Because of global warming, we're getting global cooling.

If this is how things work, I'm glad I'm getting older and, by the way, can I get a pay cut at work?
I'm sure they'd give you a pay cut if you asked! :smirky:

More moisture is being introduced into the air from warmer seas, which is causing increased snowfall in one part of antarctica. The glaciers are still shrinking on the other side of the continent. They also said "It is the only large terrestrial ice body that is gaining mass rather than losing it".

I'll have to read your thread on the issue - it's not one I know much about.

[UnkHiram]

This is of course President Bush's fault.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I'm sure they'd give you a pay cut if you asked! :smirky:

More moisture is being introduced into the air from warmer seas, which is causing increased snowfall in one part of antarctica. The glaciers are still shrinking on the other side of the continent. They also said "It is the only large terrestrial ice body that is gaining mass rather than losing it".

I'll have to read your thread on the issue - it's not one I know much about.
There has been some global warming in the past 100+ years, but it's nothing more than a natural recovery from the 500-year Little Ice Age that ended in the late 19th Century. Most of that warming occurred prior to 1940 and there is no scientific evidence that any of the warming is due to human activity. Since both the Greenland Ice Cap and the Antarctic Ice Cap are thickening, there is at least some likelyhood that we are entering a period of global cooling.

[Peachdiane]

N-T writes
There has been some global warming in the past 100+ years, but it's nothing more than a natural recovery from the 500-year Little Ice Age that ended in the late 19th Century.

I'll agree with you on this one ...I've always said that the warming is a natural "balancing " .... I figure if dinosauers are being found in N. Dakota ...the area at one time had to be much warmer year round than it is now ....

[UnkHiram]

NT & Peach

Dont confuse the issue with logic and facts. Obviously their is massive global warming and we are all gonna die from it. Also, it is obvious that is was caused by President Bush and Haliburton.

[sunsettommy]

Tech Central Station

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>The Tip of the Iceberg</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#000000 height=1></TD></TR><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>By Patrick Michaels

Last week on Earth Day, AP newswire led with a real scare story: "Study Shows Antarctic Glaciers Shrinking." In doing so, the press, yet again, predictably distorted a global warming story. <?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p></o:p>



<o:p></o:p>

By "Antarctica" they actually meant the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 /><st1:place w:st="on">Antarctic Peninsula</st1:place>, which comprises about 2% of the continent. It's warming there and has been for decades. But every scientist (or for that matter, everyone who has read Michael Crichton's "State of <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Fear</st1:place></st1:State>") knows that the temperature averaged over the entire continent has been declining for decades.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

The underlying science behind the AP story was published in the April 22, 2005 issue of Science magazine, under the more appropriate (and accurate) title, "Retreating Glacier Fronts on the <st1:place w:st="on">Antarctic Peninsula</st1:place> over the Past Half-Century." A research team led by Alison Cook of the British Antarctic Survey carefully measured the historical position of 244 glaciers as determined from a 60-year collection of images including aerial photographs and satellite pictures. By comparing the position of glacier termini over time, the researchers were able to determine the timing and speed of glacial changes.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

The results presented in Science weren't even based on the entire <st1:place w:st="on">Peninsula</st1:place>, but rather the northern portion. While a more comprehensive continent-wide investigation of coastal glacier changes is underway, only the results from the <st1:place w:st="on">Peninsula</st1:place> were written up. <o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

Figure 1 shows the temperature trends from 1966-2000 over <st1:place w:st="on">Antarctica</st1:place> as reported in a study by Peter Doran and colleagues and published in Nature magazine in 2002. The region that encompasses all 244 of the glaciers in the Science study is highlighted. While it is clear the there has been warming in the localized region around where the <st1:place w:st="on">Antarctic Peninsula</st1:place> glaciers are located, it is also clear that the majority of the rest of the continent has been cooling. Just how much has been cooling was also calculated by Doran (Figure 2), and shows that about 2/3rds of the continent outside of the <st1:place w:st="on">Peninsula</st1:place> has been cooling over the past 35 years or so.

Click here for the very revealing picture that FIGURE 1 is talking about:

<o:p>http://www.techcentralstation.com/images/042505C1.gif</o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p>The main link:</o:p>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
http://www.techcentralstation.com/042505C.html

[Peachdiane]

So ...the self proclaimed experts agree that we're all gonna die ?

Just not sure if we are going to Heat roasted or freeze dried bein's ??

[Bob_Arctor]

There has been some global warming in the past 100+ years, but it's nothing more than a natural recovery from the 500-year Little Ice Age that ended in the late 19th Century. Most of that warming occurred prior to 1940
Yeah, I see that temperatures tend to be somewhat cyclical.

Hmm - I'm actually looking at a chart right now showing both land and water temps actually increasing since the 1940s. I'll have to look into it a bit more.
and there is no scientific evidence that any of the warming is due to human activity.
I've never been quite sure if the controversy is over the existence of warming in general, or if there's agreement it happens but the debate is actually over human versus natural causes. Something else to look into...
Since both the Greenland Ice Cap and the Antarctic Ice Cap are thickening, there is at least some likelyhood that we are entering a period of global cooling.
Well, the rationale behind the thicking in Antarctica is that the warmer seas are providing extra moisture, which is coming down as snow (you know I'm sure that Antarctica is basically a desert - just a super cold one).

I'll have to look at the back issues of Nature and see what they have to say about things like ocean temps and salinity.

[Wolfcounsel]

I really feel bad about the people in the cold regions of Earth freezing their butts off and not gonna get any of this global warming the enviroweenies have been whining about.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Yeah, I see that temperatures tend to be somewhat cyclical.

Hmm - I'm actually looking at a chart right now showing both land and water temps actually increasing since the 1940s. I'll have to look into it a bit more.
Here is a link to an article from the April 28, 1975 issue of Newsweek that sounded the alarm about rapidly falling temperatutes since 1940 and the possibility of an impending ice age. I am also posting a temperature graph from that article:

The Cooling World (http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm)

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

http://users4.ev1.net/~rwadding/globalcooling.jpg

As a result of that dramatic global cooling, scientists began studies into global cooling, but they soon found out that there was no grant money available for such studies. Some scientists - junk scientists - immediately began to fudge temperature data to show a warming trend that did not exist and began to claim global warming for which there was grant money. That's how those junk scientists concocted the global warming scare.

In the early 1980s there was concern about the probability of global cooling, but that didn't fit the socialist agenda. So those junk scientists formed a team to "prove" that the Earth was warming. Dr. Robert Jastrow, former Director of the NASA Goddard Space Center, was a member of that original team. Early in the study Dr. Jastrow learned that other members of the team were falsifying climate data to make it look like there was global warming when there wasn't. Dr. Jastrow promptly resigned from the team.

You may also be interested in NASA Satellite Data (http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html). Please read the text that accompanies these charts at that link for more details.

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/images/strato_temp.gif

and

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/images/tropo_temp.gif

Note that the satellite data is inconclusive as to whether there is a long-term warming trend or a long-term cooling trend. There is as much evidence of global cooling as there is of global warming.

[DesertFox]

Which demonstrates graphically what we've held all along: We don't know anywhere near enough to be making far-reaching policy decisions such as Kyoto -- which would ruin the world's economies -- based on "the science" or anything else. It's one thing to be cautious and another to get Chicken Littled into doing something disastrous based essentially on somebody's unsubstantiated opinion that mankind is mean to Mama Earth.

[Bob_Arctor]

Very interesting stuff NT. I haven't had much free time since you posted these charts, but when I can I'll look into it some more. Like I said before, I really don't know enough about the subject to have any valid opinion. From your information, it sure looks like it could be argued either way.

I wonder what other data is out there - fluctuations in solar output, ocean temps or salinity for example.

[DoctorDoom]

I really feel bad about the people in the cold regions of Earth freezing their butts off and not gonna get any of this global warming the enviroweenies have been whining about.Anyone got some global warming that you can spare? We've had two days thusfar in 2005 when the temperature was over 70°, and below-freezing nights are still common. Yesterday we reached a balmy 47°.

Tell me all about global warming. :rolleyes:

[sunsettommy]

Very interesting stuff NT. I haven't had much free time since you posted these charts, but when I can I'll look into it some more. Like I said before, I really don't know enough about the subject to have any valid opinion. From your information, it sure looks like it could be argued either way.

I wonder what other data is out there - fluctuations in solar output, ocean temps or salinity for example.

Here is the DAILY sea surface temperature from the University of Wisconsin-Madison:

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/sst/latest_sst.gif

[sunsettommy]

Very interesting stuff NT. I haven't had much free time since you posted these charts, but when I can I'll look into it some more. Like I said before, I really don't know enough about the subject to have any valid opinion. From your information, it sure looks like it could be argued either way.

I wonder what other data is out there - fluctuations in solar output, ocean temps or salinity for example.

This should answer a lot of questions you may have:This is the table of contents.

A Brief History of Ice Ages and Warming
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_black.gifCauses of Global Climate Change

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_black.gifPlaying with Numbers

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_black.gifA Matter of Opinion

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_black.gifUnraveling the Earth's Temperature Record

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_black.gifStopping Climate Change


Excerpt:

During the last 100 years there have been two general cycles of warming and cooling recorded in the U.S. We are currently in the second warming cycle. Overall, U.S. temperaturesshow no significant warming trend over the last 100 years (1). This has been well - established but not well - publicized.





<CENTER>http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image159.gif</CENTER>

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor2108263

This is a good link.

[organix]

Why don't we all just ignore the majority of world scientists and most of the massive body of research and data and instead focus on the minute portion that supports the party line? Perfect Idea! My God, the conservative approach to this subject is so predictable. As a part of a balanced diet, I've read the Satanic Gases and attended the author's (Patrick Michael) lectures in university. But in the aggregate, I can't understand the desperation with which so many people attempt with such rigidity to argue a point against such odds, on such shaky foundations. I think its wise to balance your scientific diet, taking in multiple sources from wide ranges, and then make an assessment.

[DesertFox]

the conservative approach to this subject is so predictable. Indeed it is. It requires hard science with no lies, no distortions, no rounding of estimates always in one direction, no encouraging others to lie to support the liberal party line.

Yep, we're so predictable. And so right. When Einstein came on the scene with relativity, the entire physics world said, "Baloney!" When Chandrasekhar predicted that stars have a limit beyond which they cannot grow without necessarily undergoing supernova, the physics establishment said, "Bullshit!" When Hawking predicted that black holes radiate, the physicists said, "You've lost your mind!" When Schwarz and Green insisted that string theory unifies relativity and quantum mechanics, the physics establishment yawned and ignored them.

Votes or opinions don't decide things in science. Science does. And science doesn't support the notion of human-caused global warming.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Why don't we all just ignore the majority of world scientists and most of the massive body of research and data and instead focus on the minute portion that supports the party line? Perfect Idea! My God, the conservative approach to this subject is so predictable. As a part of a balanced diet, I've read the Satanic Gases and attended the author's (Patrick Michael) lectures in university. But in the aggregate, I can't understand the desperation with which so many people attempt with such rigidity to argue a point against such odds, on such shaky foundations. I think its wise to balance your scientific diet, taking in multiple sources from wide ranges, and then make an assessment.
Actually, there is NO scientific consensus that global warming is caused by human activity. The ONLY way that junk scientists can make the claim that global warming is caused by human activity is to fudge the data - in other words, they are forced to LIE! The case for global warming being natural and cyclical is overwhelming and irrefutable.

[nene]

Don't know much about global warming. I do know that the haze over Dallas and Fort Worth is unnatural. I think we gotta find alternate forms of energy. Still...may the 68 Camaro...and other classics...roam free.

[Naturalized-Texan]

nene: Pollution has nothing to do with global warming and vice-versa.

[nene]

Never said it did. Still, pollution is bad.

[organix]

As we all know, any scienctific research that disputes our claims, no matter how comprehensive in scope, is to be labeled as "junk science". This is a perfect way to discredit those pesky scientists funded by universities, governments, and international scientific bodies all over the world. If we dont like the outcome of the research, we must simply label it as "junk" so we can reinforce our shallow conclusions about science and its findings.

[Naturalized-Texan]

As we all know, any scienctific research that disputes our claims, no matter how comprehensive in scope, is to be labeled as "junk science". This is a perfect way to discredit those pesky scientists funded by universities, governments, and international scientific bodies all over the world. If we dont like the outcome of the research, we must simply label it as "junk" so we can reinforce our shallow conclusions about science and its findings.
The problem with your claim is that scientists funded by universities, governments, and international scientific bodies all over the world have all concluded that there is no scientific evidence that global warming is caused by human activities. Here are just a few examples (BTW, I've already posted these links on several threads in this forum.):

20th Century Climate Not So Hot]

Cambridge, MA - A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.

[url=http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/]National Academies of Science: Climate Change Repore (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/pr0310.html)

THE EFFECT OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES

Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the observed warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it does not constitute proof of one because the model simulations could be deficient in natural variability on the decadal to century time scale. The warming that has been estimated to have occurred in response to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is somewhat greater than the observed warming. At least some of this excess warming has been offset by the cooling effect of sulfate aerosols, and in any case one should not necessarily expect an exact correspondence because of the presence of natural variability.

The cooling trend in the stratosphere, evident in radiosonde data since the 1960s and confirmed by satellite observations starting in 1979, is so pronounced as to be difficult to explain on the basis of natural variability alone. This trend is believed to be partially a result of stratospheric ozone depletion and partially a result of the buildup of greenhouse gases, which warm the atmosphere at low levels but cool it at high levels. The circulation of the stratosphere has responded to the radiatively induced temperature changes in such a way as to concentrate the effects in high latitudes of the winter hemisphere, where cooling of up to 5°C (9°F) has been observed.

There have been significant changes in the atmospheric circulation during the past several decades: e.g., the transition in climate over the Pacific sector around 1976 that was analogous in some respects to a transition toward more "El Niño-like" conditions over much of the Pacific, and the more gradual strengthening of the wintertime westerlies over subpolar latitudes of both Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Such features bear watching, lest they be early indications of changes in the natural modes of atmospheric variability triggered by human induced climate change. To place them in context, however, it is worth keeping in mind that there were events of comparable significance earlier in the record, such as the 1930s dust bowl.

Solar Variations (http://reason.com/9810/fe.baliunas.shtml)

Baliunas: Nearly 15 years ago, I started hearing that there now were models--imulations--of the earth's climate system that could be projected 100 years into the future. I was curious and thought, "Wow, that's a significant leap in meteorology and climatology. I want to learn about that." So I began looking at the models and how they can make predictions so far in advance. I also began to look at climate simulations run on computers and ask the question, What is the natural level of climate change? What is the influence of the sun?

The reason for asking how the sun might influence it is that there is lots of direct evidence that the sun has an impact. For example, the sun changes in its brightness [an average of] every 11 years with the magnetic cycle. We know that from recent satellite measurements. But going back further in time, we know the sun changes every few centuries. During the 17th century, which was an unusually cold period on Earth, the sun had very little magnetic activity for about a century--the Maunder Minimum, coincident with the Little Ice Age.

Reason: What is the Maunder Minimum?

Baliunas: The Maunder Minimum is this episode in the 17th century where the 11-year cycle was suppressed--was very quiet--and the sun dropped to very low levels of magnetism.

Reason: The 11-year cycle disappeared?

Baliunas: Almost. There were certainly long months of time, and even a decade toward the end of the 17th century, when sighting a sunspot was very rare.

Reason: Is there any theory for what caused that?

Baliunas: That's the hot question. We have to explain the 11-year cycle in the first place. There's a crude picture that says we know the sun's magnetism changes with time because of the way the sun spins and the way the outer layer rolls with convection. Beyond that, it's not a good theory. Making an 11-year repeating cycle is difficult in most theories. Making it disappear every few centuries is even more difficult.

Reason: How do you know magnetic records of the sun from the 17th century?

Baliunas: The records of sunspots go back to 1609, to Galileo's day, and that's almost long enough to see this episode. But we have some unbiased records: The sun has a wind that carries the magnetic field toward the earth and acts as a shield. There's a rain of cosmic rays coming from deep space. When the sun's magnetic field is strong, these cosmic rays tend to be deflected. When the magnetic field is weak, these cosmic rays penetrate the upper atmosphere of the earth. When the cosmic rays come in, they make radiocarbon in the upper atmosphere, and that carbon-14 ends up in carbon dioxide molecules. It's breathed in by a tree and put in its tree ring, so the amount of carbon-14 over time in tree rings tells you what the sun has been doing in the past. Those records trace the sun back about 10,000 years. So we know the ups and downs of the sun's magnetism for the last 10,000 years or so.

After looking at this, I began to ask, How well do the climate simulations handle this relatively new knowledge about the sun? And the answer is, not very well. We don't know the mechanism for change in the sun very well. We don't know the response of the earth to such changes. So I thought, How do you make predictions 100 years in the future if you don't even know what all the sources of change are?

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm) Note: This study was signed by more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees. Signers so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists. Signers so far also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization are in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences. So much for your false claims of a consensus.

ABSTRACT

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.

Summary

World leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 to consider a world treaty restricting emissions of ''greenhouse gases,'' chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2), that are thought to cause ''global warming'' severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences. Predictions of global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth's temperature shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly.

To be sure, CO2 levels have increased substantially since the Industrial Revolution, and are expected to continue doing so. It is reasonable to believe that humans have been responsible for much of this increase. But the effect on the environment is likely to be benign. Greenhouse gases cause plant life, and the animal life that depends upon it, to thrive. What mankind is doing is liberating carbon from beneath the Earth's surface and putting it into the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living organisms.

The following link contains many links to scientific studies that debunk the junk scientists' false claims that global warming is caused by human activities:

The Marshall Institute: Climate Change (http://www.marshall.org/subcategory.php?id=9)

There's more, but these will suffice to debunk any claims of human-caused global warming.

[Naturalized-Texan]

organix:

Junk scientists are known as such because they have sacrificed their scientific credibility on the altar of left-wing, big-government-control politics - in other words, on the altar of socialism/fascism.

[sunsettommy]

As we all know, any scienctific research that disputes our claims, no matter how comprehensive in scope, is to be labeled as "junk science". This is a perfect way to discredit those pesky scientists funded by universities, governments, and international scientific bodies all over the world. If we dont like the outcome of the research, we must simply label it as "junk" so we can reinforce our shallow conclusions about science and its findings.

I have read both your postings in this thread and you offer NOTHING to rebute what we say about Global warming.

I meet people like you a lot,grossly ignorant and narrow minded on the issue.

You are not worth my time.

[Wyatt_Junker]

As we all know...

Nice lead. Ron Popeil could use a guy like you.

[Riverboat]

Lussee if I got this straight: Because of global warming, we're getting global cooling.

If this is how things work, I'm glad I'm getting older and, by the way, can I get a pay cut at work?And I'm shrinking like a deflated balloon.

Anyone got some global warming that you can spare? We've had two days thusfar in 2005 when the temperature was over 70°, and below-freezing nights are still common. Yesterday we reached a balmy 47°.
I'm ready for a little global cooling myself down here on the Gulf Coast.

[organix]

I have read both your postings in this thread and you offer NOTHING to rebute what we say about Global warming.

Try the IPCC for starters. www.ipcc.ch (http://www.ipcc.ch/)

Oh wait, the most prestigious climate change organization in the world is going to challenge your point of view, better stay away...

[DesertFox]

Organix, you've changed from a rational-sounding person to a dumbass-sounding person. You also seem to have morphed from a woman into a man. What gives? :question:

[Faithful_Servant]

Try the IPCC for starters. www.ipcc.ch (http://www.ipcc.ch/)

Oh wait, the most prestigious climate change organization in the world is going to challenge your point of view, better stay away...

O, pay attention to some real basic facts. If there is no climate change, then there is no IPCC. If their findings showed GW for the lie that it is, then their employees will be looking for work. Since GW will have then be proven to be a lie and these people's job skills and experience are all oriented around GW, what chance do you think they have of finding a job that doesn't include a spatula and the term "Do you want fries with that?" Keeping these small details in mind (concentrate REALLY hard and I'm sure you can pull it off), do you really think that the IPCC is going to produce any results that don't keep the paychecks coming?

[sunsettommy]

Try the IPCC for starters. www.ipcc.ch (http://www.ipcc.ch/)

Oh wait, the most prestigious climate change organization in the world is going to challenge your point of view, better stay away...

I am well aware of that organization,it has made so many errors over the years that it is a ghost of its former self from the early 1990's.When so many would listen to them,now they are so pathetic just a few still listen to them.I first started reading their crap way back in the early 1990's and then easily when the Internet grew up.The origional Chairman was so bad that he was FORCED out for being so DAMN Political on the issues.

The fact that they STILL back the "Hockey Stick" crap created by Mann and his lackeys,is proof of that they have ignored the many easy refutations posted by others in the field including a couple of NON climate researchers.No credibility left to chew on.It is certaintly not at all prestigious.

Then they fell in love over climate circulation models,HA HA HA.

Junk Science.Com recently challenged ANYONE who loves Climate Circulation Models to RECREATE a PAST weather event or more and send it to Stephen Milloy and his website,evidence that a CCM actually work reasonably well.

Now it is apparent that the letters(IPCC) significance flies well over your head.

It is INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

A GOVERNMENTAL PANEL! :hahaha:

The phrase Climate Change is a misnomer since Climate is ALWAYS CHANGING! ALWAYS!

There is so much for you to know and I have probably a 30 year head start on you.So be carefull,I have made some people look really stupid when I got done.

[sunsettommy]

Here is a fine example of a Climate researcher exposing the dishonest media.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>The Tip of the Iceberg</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#000000 height=1></TD></TR><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>By Patrick Michaels

<Excerpt>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Last week on Earth Day, AP newswire led with a real scare story: "Study Shows Antarctic Glaciers Shrinking." In doing so, the press, yet again, predictably distorted a global warming story. <?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p></o:p>



<o:p></o:p>

By "Antarctica" they actually meant the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 /><st1:place w:st="on">Antarctic Peninsula</st1:place>, which comprises about 2% of the continent. It's warming there and has been for decades. But every scientist (or for that matter, everyone who has read Michael Crichton's "State of <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Fear</st1:place></st1:State>") knows that the temperature averaged over the entire continent has been declining for decades.<o:p></o:p>


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
http://www.techcentralstation.com/042505C.html
__________________________________________________ _________
Come on go read it up.

Remember Antartica has NET growth of Ice and since they represent 89% of ALL the Ice on the Planet.That is significant.

[organix]

From your favorite newspaper.


Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming

</NYT_HEADLINE><NYT_BYLINE version="1.0" type=" ">By ANDREW C. REVKIN (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=ANDREW C. REVKIN&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=ANDREW C. REVKIN&inline=nyt-per)

A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.
In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.

The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties," tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust.

Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues.

Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the "climate team leader" and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics, he has no scientific training.

The documents were obtained by The New York Times from the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit legal-assistance group for government whistle-blowers.

Read the full article here. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html?pagewanted=print)

You might automatically dismiss the article based on the source and its critical nature, but its probably better to suspend judgement until after you read it and think about it first. Hurrah for former petroleum lobbyists who influence our national environmental policies! Thats exactly what we need; to hell with the real scientists.

[Faithful_Servant]

From your favorite newspaper.



Read the full article here. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html?pagewanted=print)

You might automatically dismiss the article based on the source and its critical nature, but its probably better to suspend judgement until after you read it and think about it first. Hurrah for former petroleum lobbyists who influence our national environmental policies! Thats exactly what we need; to hell with the real scientists.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/pproject.jpg (http://www.oism.org/pproject) <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD>Explanation </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Listed below are 17,200 of the initial signers


During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm).

Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals (http://www.oism.org/pproject/a_sci.htm)) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate. Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals (http://www.oism.org/pproject/b_sci.htm)) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm)

Here's just the As...
Earl Aagaard, PhD, Roger L Aamodt, PhD, M Robert Aaron, Ralph F Abate, Hamed Abbas, PhD, Reza Abbaschian, PhD, Paul Abbett, Wyatt E Abbitt III, David M Abbott Jr, Ursula K Abbott, PhD, Will S Abbott, Riaz F. Abdulla, PhD, J M Abell, Philip H Abelson, PhD, Wayne Aben, Grady Ables, Earl A Abrahamson, PhD, John Abrams, David Acerni, J Wayne Achee, Hans J. Achemann, D T Achord, PhD, Ernest Achterberg, Gene Ackerman, John R Ackerman, William Ackerman, Richard E. Ackermann, Terry Ackman, Donald O Acrey, Lee Actor, Robert K Adair, PhD, Brian Adam, PhD, Chris Adam, John A Adam, PhD, Adams, Arthur Adams, Brook Adams, Charles K Adams, Craig Adams, Daniel Adams, PhD, Daniel B Adams Jr, Dell Adams, Donald Adams, Donald S Adams, Eugene Adams, Gail D Adams, PhD, George B Adams, PhD, Gerald J Adams, PhD, Gregory Adams, Henry Adams, Henry Adams, Howard Adams, James W Adams, Jim Adadms, John Adams, John E Adams, PhD, Kent A. Adams, Leonard C A Adams, PhD, Louis W Adams, PhD, Michael P Adams, Neil Adams, PhD, Opal Adams, Peter Adams, Phillip Adams, PhD, Richard E Adams, Richard L Adams, Robert F Adams, Roy B Adams, Roy M Adams, PhD, Steve W Adams, Walter Adams, William D Adams, William M Adams, PhD, William W Adams, Wilton Adams, PhD, Wilton T Adams, PhD, Wm J Adams, George Adcock, Rusty Adcock, MD, Lionel P Adda, PhD, Albert W Addington, Tim Addington, Bill Addison, John K Addy, PhD, C William Ade, Albert H Adelman, PhD, Barnet R Adelman, L A Adkins, Michael F Adkins, Ronald A Adkins, PhD, T Adkins, Norman Adler, PhD, Lt Col Jacques J Adnet, Anthrony J Adrignolo, PhD, Harry Adrounie, PhD, Richard A Adsero, Steven E Aeschbach, Stephen Affleck, PhD, Siegfried Aftergut, PhD, Jack Agan, Larry D Agenbroad, PhD, Sven Agerbek, George Aggen, PhD, Vincent Agnello, MD, Kenneth Agnes, Mark Agnew, M C Agress, Jorge T Aguinadlo, Roy Ahalt, Robert Aharonov, Richard Ahern, Phillip Ahlberg, Kevin Ahlborg, Mark Ahlert, Terry Ahlquist, Mumtaz Ahmed, PhD, Rafique Ahmed, PhD, Robert Ahokas, PhD, H W Ahrenholz, Edward Ahrens, Rolland W Ahrens, PhD, Robert M Ahring, PhD, John J Aiello, Joseph P. Aiello, MD, S F Aiello, Phil Aigner, Brian R Ainley, Ainsworth, Alfred Ainsworth III, E Bud Ainsworth, Oscar R Ainsworth, PhD, S Aisenberg, PhD, David J Akers, Linda Akers, Willie Akers, Wayne Henry Akeson, MD, Thane Akins, Korkor Akoto, Akram, PhD, John Alai, Robert J Alaimo, PhD, Greg Alan, Vincent M Albanese, A Henry Albaugh, Ed Alberding, Timothy A Albers, MD, Edward Albert, Eric K Albert, PhD, Wm L Albert, James L Alberta, Mark W Albertsen, Frank Addison Albini, PhD, D Douglas Albrecht, Robert Albrecht, Rudolph C Albrecht, Fred R Albright, PhD, James C Albright, PhD, Robert Lee Albright, PhD, Tad B Albright, Marcus Albro, Allwyn Albuquerque, Ernest C Alcaraz, PhD, Garrett D Alcorn, MD, Luis Aldecoa, Frank Alder, Ronald G Alderfer, PhD, Thomas Alderson, PhD, Bill Aldrich, Franklin D Aldrich, PhD, Richard J Aldrich, PhD, Samuel Aldrich, PhD, Samuel Aldrich, PhD, David Aldridge, Robert Aldridge, Wm M Baldwin, Peter C Alecxih Sr, PhD, Russell J Alameda Jr, Perry B Alers, PhD, Steven J Alessandro, Alex F Alessandrini, Joe Alex, Danrick Alexander, Dave Alexander, Harold R Alexander, Ira Alexander, James F Alexander Jr, John C Alexander, Michael L Alexander, Nelson Alexander, Robert Alexander, Moorad Alexanian, PhD, Rex Alford, Robert Alford, Roger C Alig, PhD, R Allahyari, PhD, Dennis Allard, Joel Alldredge, Arly Allen, Belle Allen, Charles C Allen, Christopher G Allen, Clayton H Allen, PhD, David Allen, PhD, Emma G Allen, PhD, Eric R Allen, PhD, F. J. Allen, James Allen, PhD, John L Allen, Kenneth Allen, Merrill P Allen, Mike R Allen, PhD, Pampselo Allen, Randall Allen, Robert Allen, MD, Robert C Allen, Roger B Allen, PhD, Thomas H Allen, PhD, William Allen, William Allen, Robert T Van Aller, PhD, Carl Allesandro, Jonathan Alley, MD, Robt W Allgood, Ronald Alli, Craig Allison, Ronald C Allison, MD, Terry Allison, Kevin E Allisonn, John J Allport, PhD, Albert L Allred, PhD, Ivan D Allred Jr, Victor D Allred, PhD, Arthur W Allsop, Gary L Allurg, MD, R A Allwein, Frank M Almeter, PhD, Richard E Almy, Patrick Aloutto, PhD, James Aloye, Reevis S Alphin, PhD, A Frank Alsobrook, John Alsop, PhD, Sally Alston, Charles Alt, Vincent O Altemose, Timothy Altier, David Altman, PhD, Melvyn R Altman, PhD, Ronny G Altman, Tracy Altman, PhD, Peter C Altner, MD, Edward E Altshuler, PhD, Burton M Altura, PhD, Antonio Alvarez, Byron Alvey, Vern Always, Bradley A Aman, David Saint Amand, Charles D Amata, PhD, Charles Amateis, Ronald Amberger, PhD, Leo E Amborski, PhD, Maynard Amdahl, Donald F Amend, PhD, Marvin E Ament, Richard Amerling, MD, Robert C Amero, Edward J Ames III, Martin Ames, Richard Ames, MD, Michael Amick, Duane R Amlee, A S Ammar, Moris Amon, PhD, Pierre Saiut- Amond, PhD, Richard D Amori, Bonnie Amos, PhD, Dewey H Amos, PhD, J Reeves Ampsco, A Amr, PhD, Desiree Armstrong, PhD, Fred Amsler, MD, Adolph L Amundson, James Amy, Sal A Anazalone, Ernest J Andberg, G Robt D Andborn, John Anders, MD, Donald A Andersen, PhD, Gene P Andersen, Randall H Andersen, Terrell Andersen, PhD, Torben B Andersen, PhD, Wilford H Andersen, PhD, A E Anderson, Allan C Anderson, Anderson, Arthur G Anderson, PhD, Berard J Anderson, PhD, Bruce Anderson, Bruce M Anderson, C M Anderson Jr, Carol Anderson, Chris Anderson, Cristopher Anderson, David A Anderson, David Anderson, MD, David Anderson, David O. Anderson, PhD, David R Anderson, PhD, Donald Hervin Anderson, PhD, Donald N Anderson, PhD, Douglas J. Anderson, MD, Elmer Anderson, PhD, Gerald L Anderson, Glenn L Anderson, Greg Anderson, Harrison C Anderson, MD, HC Anderson, Ingrid Anderson, PhD, J H Anderson, James Anderson, James Anderson, James R Anderson, James R Anderson, Janis W Anderson, Jimmy D Anderson, Joel Anderson, John Anderson, PhD, John O Anderson, Julia W Anderson, PhD, Keith Anderson, Ken Anderson, Kenneth E Anderson, Kerry Anderson, Larry Anderson, PhD, Larry D Anderson, Leif H Anderson, Lowell R Anderson, Mark A Anderson, Mary Anderson, Mitchell Anderson, Nathan Anderson, Orson L Anderson, PhD, P Jennings Anderson, Paul Anderson, Percy Anderson, R L Anderson, Reece B Anderson, Richard A Anderson, PhD, Richard C Anderson, Robert E Anderson, Robt J Anderson, MD, Roger O Anderson, Roy Anderson, Russell Anderson, Staren D Anderson, Thomas Anderson, Thomas Anderson, PhD, Thornton Anderson, Tom Anderson, Warren R Anderson, Deborah Anderstrom, John R Andrade, PhD, Manuel Andrade, Ivan Andrasik, Gilbert M. Andreen, Douglas Andress, James Andrew, James F Andrew, PhD, Lawrence L Andrew, Al Andrews, PhD, Frederick Andrews, Harry N Andrews, John S Andrews, PhD, Marion Andrews, Mel Andrews, Raynal W Andrews, Russell S Andrews, PhD, Louis Andros, Mb Andrus, PhD, Alfredo Ang, PhD, Robert E Angel, Ernest F Angelicola, Vincent Angelo, DDS, Francis M Angeloni, PhD, Steven T Angely, Claude B Anger, Robert Angevine, Ernest Angino, PhD, Kevin P Ankenbrand, David Arnold, Gregory Antal, Bradley C Anthanaitis, PhD, John Anthes, PhD, Eliazbeth Anthony, PhD, Jack R Anthony, Lee S Anthony, PhD, Robt D Anthony, Dan Antonescu-Wolf, MD, Willford Antonson, Sanford Apfelroth, PhD, Carl Apicella, Bruce W Apland, David R Appel, Daniel Appell, Norman Apperson, W H Appich Jr, Lynn Apple, PhD, Robert Apple, Alan Appleby, PhD, Robert H Appleby, Donald Applegate, DVM, Lowell N Applegate, John Applegath, Herbert S Appleman, Morris H Aprison, PhD, Charles Apter, PhD, Richard E Apuzzo Jr, J B Aquilla, MD, Ara Arabyan, PhD, Howard Arbaugh, Jaime Arbona-Fazzi, PhD, John Arcadi, MD, Ed Arce, John Arch, Amber G Archer, Bill Archer, Diane M. Archer, William Archer, Dave Archibald, Philip Archibald, Robert Archibald, John Archie, William Ard, William Bryant Ard, PhD, Christopher Arend, Dennis Arfmann, Harold V Argo, PhD, Guvenc Argon, Lawrence Ariano, MD, William Arion, PhD, Z S Ariyan, PhD, Gertrude Armbauster, PhD, Richard Armentrout, PhD, Walt Armer, Walter D Armer, Baxter H Armstrong, PhD, Clifford Armstrong, Glenn Armstrong, James Armstrong, James C Armstrong, PhD, Joseph C. Armstrong, PhD, Lou Armstrong, Mark Armstrong, Marvin D Armstrong, PhD, Robert L Armstrong, PhD, Robert Emile Arnal, PhD, Dana Arndt, Gregory Arndt, Jerome Arnett, MD, Ross Arnett, Charles Arney, Philip J Arnholt, PhD, C Arnold, Charles Arnold, PhD, Herbert K Arnold, John Arnold, Lance L Arnold, Randall W Arnold, Robert Arnold Jr, DVM, Rosemary Arnold, Timothy Arnold, Wm A Arnold, PhD, Lester C Arnwine, Casper J Aronson, Seymour Aronson, PhD, Adrian L Arp, PhD, Charles H Arrington, PhD, Dale E Arrington, PhD, Clement R Arrison, Jose J D Arruda, PhD, Arsate, Holly Arterbury, Emerson O Mc Arthur III, James Arthur, PhD, Richard Arthur, Charles G Artinian, MD, Max Artusy, PhD, A G Ash, Edward V Ashburn, Randolph Ashby, PhD, A Ashley, PhD, Holt Ashley, PhD, Warren C Ashley, PhD, Alvin Ashman, Jerome P Ashman, Walter R Ashwil, Walter Ashwill, Bob Ashworth

Monroe Ashworth, Owen Ashworth, Robert Ashworth, Orv Askeland, Ann Askew, Tom W Asmus, PhD, Winifred Alice Asprey, PhD, Mike Assad, Adel Assaf, George Aster, R Lee Aston, PhD, Jim Atchison, Curtis L. Atchley, Robert Aten, PhD, James Athanasion, James Athans, Robert D Athey Jr, PhD, Robert Douglas Athey, PhD, Arthur C Atkins, John Atkinson, John P Atkinson, MD, Larry Atkinson, Lynn Atkinson, Matt Atkinson, Stanley Atnipp, Sharon M Attaway, Ronald Attig, Leonardo D Attorre, William J Attwooll, Mark Atwood, PhD, Robt C Atwood, Darrel D Auch, James C Auckland, Walter Auclair, PhD, Berk Aucoin, W H Audley, Louis A Auerbach, Keith H Aufderheide, PhD, Wm R Aufricht, Dale Augenstein, PhD, J Augspurger, PhD, Frederick N Aukeman, Boris Auksmann, PhD, C M Aulick, PhD, Luther Aull, PhD, Bruce S Ault, PhD, John B Aultmann Jr, Henry S Aurand, Richard Aurand, Alfred E Austin, PhD, Carl Fulton Austin, PhD, D Austin, P E, Harold Austin, Michael N Austin, Robert L Austin, Ward Austin, William H Austin, Canan Avela, William Avera, Victor H Averbach, PhD, Mark Avereit, Jon R Averhoff, Frank Averill, PhD, Alex Avery, Donald Avery, Michael E Avery, Philip Avery, Kenneth Avicola, Arthur J Avila, Joseph Avruch, MD, M Friedman Axler, Mark Axtell, William P Aycock, George L Ayer, Walton Ayer, Robert C Ayers, PhD, Maynard F Ayler, William Aylor, John H Ayme, Bruce Ayres, T G Ayres, Dany Ayseur, Alison M Azar, Max Azevedo

[markus3622]

In terms of where the consensus lies, this pretty much settles it.

The science academies of the world's leading nations have urged their governments to take prompt action to combat possible climate change.

Their statement read: "It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities.


"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. "Action taken now to reduce significantly the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lessen the magnitude and rate of climate change."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4616431.stm

__________________________________________________ __________________

I just wish more conservatives would be honest about their rejection of climate change. Ultimately, if climate change is happening, and we wish to deal with it, it must be a multinational effort. As most conservatives oppose such an effort, they conclude that the science must be faulty. It's analogous to rejecting gravity because one doesn't like heights.

The American National Academy of Sciences was one of the signatories of the statement, along with similar bodies in France, Japan, UK, Germany, Canada, China, Italy and Russia. This cannot be written off as junk science.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Here are a few indisputable facts:

1) The Earth has warmed by 0.6 degrees Celsius in the past 100+ years.
2) Most of that warming occurred prior to 1940.
3) The warming in the past 100+ years is merely the natural recovery from the 500-year Little Ice Age that ended in the late 19th Century.
4) The Little Ice Age followed a 500-year period - the Medieval Maximum - where global temperatures were higher then they are today.
5) During the Little Ice Age temperatures were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius below normal.
6) Since global temperatures haven't yet returned to normal, we can expect to see a little more natural warming in the future.
7) Since the warming is natural, there is absolutely nothing that we can do to stop it.
8) Since there is nothing we can do to stop the warming, we may as well just sit back and enjoy it.

[Faithful_Servant]

In terms of where the consensus lies, this pretty much settles it.
Consensus???

Here's the Bs...
Bryan Baab, Dirk Den - Baars, PhD, William J Balbaris, MD, William Babbin, Ronald R Bach, PhD, Frederick A Bacher, Henry L Bachman, Kenneth Bachmann, PhD, Joseph Bacho, Alan Backman, David D Bacon, Drury L Bacon, Frank R Bacon, Frederic S Bacon, J Robert Bacon, Lloyal O Bacon, Terry Bacon, William Bacon, MD, Robert Baczuk, J Badenhoop, PhD, Warren Badger, T Dale Badgwell, Donald L Baeder, Adrian D Baer, PhD, C David Baer, Carl Baer, PhD, Roger Baer, Tim Baer, Edward A Baetke, AD Baggerley, DVM, Dennis D Baggett, Lester Marchant Baggett, PhD, Jay M Errill Bagley, PhD, Joseph A Baglio, PhD, George Bagnall, J. Brent Bagshaw, Andrew T Bahill, PhD, Donald Bahnfleth, Donald Bahnfleth, Andrejs Baidins, PhD, R. A. Baile, Benton Bailey, Betty L Bailey, C Bailey, Carl Wm Bailey, PhD, D Bailey, Dana Bailey, PhD, Dane E Bailey, David Bailey, David G Bailey, PhD, Donald T Bailey, Ed Bailey, Edmund Bailey, MD, James Bailey, Jim Bailey, John Bailey, R V Bailey, Robert L Bailey, PhD, Ronald M Bailey, W R Bill Bailey, Paul Bailly, PhD, James Bain, PhD, Lee J Bain, PhD, David Bainer, Edward J Bair, PhD, James Baird, Quincey L Baird, PhD, John Bakane, Allen Baker, PhD, Barton S Baker, PhD, Brooks H Baker III, Carl Baker, Daniel M Baker, PhD, DK Baker, PhD, Don Robert Baker, PhD, Gary Baker, Harold N Baker, PhD, Howard T Baker, J Baker, PhD, Jim Baker, Joe Baker, PhD, John Baker, John P. Baker, PhD, Lara H. Baker, PhD, Lee Baker, Lee E. Baker, PhD, Louis Baker, PhD, Mary Ann Baker, PhD, R Baker, PhD, Randal S Baker, Robert Baker, Robert D Baker, PhD, Robert J Baker, Robert W Baker, PhD, Terry Baker, W J Baker, W O Baker, PhD, William Baker, Daniel M Bakker, Lee A Balaklaw, MD, T Balance, Brent P Balcer, Marion Balcerzak, PhD, Orville Balcom, W Loyd Balderson, PhD, W Lloyd Balderston, PhD, Andrew A Baldoni, PhD, Leland B Baldrick, Edgar Baldridge, Ransom Baldwin, PhD, A Richard Baldwin, PhD, Barrett S Baldwin, PhD, David Baldwin, Evart Baldwin, PhD, Cliff Bale, George Balella, MD, R Michael Bales, Amir Balfas, Gary Balint, Stephen J Balint, P Balis, Craig Balistrire, Sallie Baliunas, PhD, Bruno Balke, MD, Frederic M Ball, MD, George Ball, J Austin Ball, MD, Mark Ball, Rayford Ball, PhD, Joseph Ballantyne, PhD, Charels L Ballard, David W Ballard, Glenn A Ballard, Harold N Ballard, Ollie Ballard, Arthur Ballato, PhD, B. Balle, MD, Greg Ballengee, Robert Balling, PhD, Carter Ballinger, MD, Walter E Ballinger, PhD, Tom Ballou Jr, Martin Balow, Robert C Balsam Jr, James Baltar, Arden A Baltensperger, PhD, Judy Balthazor, John S Baltutis, Carole Baltz, John Banchetti, Bruce A Bancroft, PhD, Daniel W Bancroft, George P Bancroft, Lewis C Bancroft, Herman Wm Bandel, PhD, Tom Bane, Debendranath Banerjee, PhD, Richard Banham, Kernan M Banker, Kernen Banker, Cezar Banks, Kerry Eubanks, Randall A Banks, Richard Banks, Willard Banman, Lloyd H Banning, Peter R Bannister, William Bannister, PhD, C S Banquer, Harry Bantham, James W Bantham, Ronald E Banuk, John Paul Barach, PhD, Ronald Barany, PhD, Zot Barazzotto, Bill Barbee, Ted R Barben I I, Anslem H Barber Jr, Art Barber, George A Barber, George Barber, Paul Barber, Paul Barbieri, James Barcikowski, Chloeteele Barclay, Charleton C Bard, PhD, Walter M Barden, Robert A Bardo, Chad J Bardone, Andrew M Bardos, Charles E Bardsley, PhD, Steven Bardwell, PhD, Morrie Jay Barembaum, Ernest Barenberg, PhD, Charles Barenfanger, David E Barensfeld, Mark J Bareta, Laurie Barfield, Thomas Barfnecht, PhD, L R Baria, Robert Barish, PhD, Francis J Barker, Frank Barker, Franklin B Barker, PhD, Horace A Barker, PhD, Larry D Barker, Leroy N. Barker, PhD, Roy J Barker, PhD, Steve Barker, Dwight G Barkley, PhD, John E Barkley, PhD, Neal Barkley, B Barks, PhD, Alan A. Barksdale, William B. Barksdale, PhD, R Michael Barland, MD, Mario Barletta, Anthony Barlow, PhD, Mark Owens Barlow, W S Barlow, Wayne Barlow, Alex Barlowen, Douglas D Barman, Audrey F. Barmore, William Barmore, Charles Barnard, John Barnard, Tom Barnard, Allen L Barnes, PhD, Durton B Barnes, M D Barnes, PhD, Ralph M Barnes, Richard Barnes, Robert F Barnes, PhD, Stephen W Barnes, L Bruce Barnett, PhD, R C Barnett, Ralph Barnett, Robert Barnett, William J Barnett, John Barney, Debra Barngrover, PhD, James R Barnum, PhD, Charles J Baroczy, Jeremiah A Barondess, MD, Louis J Barone, Barquist, MD, Walter Barquist, MD, Douglas Barr, Kenneth Barr, Lawrence D Barr, Rosemary Barr, Carrol M Barrack, PhD, Kenneth H Barratt, Clem A Barrere, PhD, C Barrett, Christopher M Barrett, Helen Barrett, Kenneth A Barrett, Mrs Carol A Barrett, Wallace H Barrett, James Barrick, PhD, Leland Barrington, Allen Barron, Cory W Barron, Donald Barron, Lance R Barron, Oscar N Barron, Lawrence J Barrows, PhD, Benjamin A Barry, Joel Barry, John L Barry, Todd R Bart, Robert Bartak, John Bartel, PhD, J H Barten, Eugene Barth, Jon Barth, Merlin J Barth, Maria V Bartha, Cristina Barthle, Jack Bartholmai, MD, Howard Bartlett, B Bartley, PhD, Gary Bartley, Carol J Bartnick, PhD, Charles J Barto Jr, Clyde Barton Jr, Hugh B Barton, Larry R Barton, Richard C Barton, Jerry Bartos, Robert J Bartosh Jr, William P Bartow, David L Bartsch, Blaine Bartz, Don Bartz, Bratzatt, PhD, Edward J Barvick, MD, David T Basden, Cecil O Basenberg, Mark Basile, John Basinski, PhD, George Baskin, Alex Baskous, MD, Jim Basnik, John W Bass, MD, Jonathan Langer Bass, PhD, Steven Craig Bass, PhD, Alton Herman Bassett, Mark J Bassett, PhD, Don Bassler, David Batchelder, Robert L Batdorf, PhD, Samuel Batdorf, PhD, Richard L Bate, James Bateman, James L Bateman, Carl Bates, PhD, Charles C Bates, PhD, Charles C Bates, PhD, Earl Bates, Lynn S Bates, PhD, Andy Batey, PhD, Robert W Batey, Terry E Batlalino, Kevin Batt, Albert Batten, PhD, George Batten, PhD, Joe Battista, Sam Battista, PhD, Jack Battle, Willis R Battles, Kirk Battleson, PhD, Joseph Battocletti, PhD, Richard Baubles, E Baudoin, Armand Bauer, PhD, Carl A Bauer, PhD, Ceo E. Bauer, David Bauer, Kerry E Bauer, Larry G Bauer, PhD, Mark S Bauer, Michael H Bauer Jr, Milton C Bauer, DVM, Paul Bauer, PhD, Thomas Bauer, Bauermeister, T Mack Baugh, George L Baughman, Joseph H Baum, PhD, Kurt Baum, PhD, Linda L Baum, PhD, Wolfgang Baum, PhD, Thomas P Baumgarth, John W Bauman, PhD, Rick Bauman, Robert Bauman, Arthur N Baumann, Norman P Baumann, PhD, Steve Baumann, Wolfgang Baumann, PhD, Lisa L Baumbach, PhD, Sandra R Baumberger, Max Baumeister, Jim Baumer, PhD, Kenneth Baumert, PhD, A W Baumgartner, AZ Baumgartner, Eric Baumgartner, Peter Bausch, Gerhard Baut, Monte Paul Bawden, PhD, Kirby Bayerle, John G Bayless, Robert L Bayless Jr, Robt Bayless, Steve Bayless, Frank Bazzanella, Joe Bazzelle, Charles Beach, Dwight Beach Jr, Gordon Beaham, A Beal, Jack W Beal, PhD, Mark Beal, Edward W Beall, Gary Beall, PhD, Herbert Beall, PhD, James M Beall, Paula T Beall, PhD, Samuel E Beall, Terry W. Beall, Brian Bean, Sam Bean, Arthur L. Bear, Marshall Bearce, James B Beard, PhD, N. Gerald Beard, Thomas Beard, Scott Beardemphl, Carl Bearden, Henry J Bearden, PhD, Wm Beardmore, PhD, Melville W Beardsley, Carl Beark, Charles Bearse III, Reginald H Bearsley, Donald Beasley, PhD, Wayne M Beasley, William Beaton, James Beattie, PhD, Ken Beatty, Christine B. Beaucage, PhD, David Beaucage, PhD, Robert Beauchamp, Robert A Beaudet, PhD, Charles G Beaudette, James H M Beaudry, Edward A Beaumont, Frank Beaumont, Lee Beaumont, Dennis Beaver, Harold Beaver, Paul Becher, PhD, Richard Becherer, PhD, Gayle D Bechtold, Bill Beck, Craig A Beck, Curt B Beck, Curt B U Beck, Curtis Beck, David Beck, Donald Beck, Douglas B Beck, Lloyd Beck, Niels Beck, PhD, Tom G Beck, William Beck, Willie Beck, A D Beckerdite, Clarence Becker, PhD, Don Becker, Ernest I Becker, Gordon E Becker, PhD, Harry C Becker, PhD, John C Becker, Louis S Becker, Milton Becker, PhD, Ralph Sherman Becker, PhD, Robert P Becker, PhD, Robert S Becker, PhD, Wilbur Becker, Sidney D Beckett, PhD, Roger H Beckham, Arnold Beckman, PhD, Joseph A Beckman, PhD, Kermit R Beckmann, David Beckner, Merrill Beckstead, PhD, Scott Beckstrand, Thoams Becnel, Charles Bedell, Glenn Bedell, PhD, Rowland Bedell, Thomas E Bedell, PhD, Kenneth L Bedford, PhD, Tom Bedford, Phillip Bednarek, William C Bedoit, PhD, Curtis M Beechan, PhD, Brian Beecken, PhD, Scott K Beegle, Giselle Beeker, Kenneth Beeney, Tom Beer, David Beerbower, Edward Lee Beeson, Jr, PhD, Mark Beget, Mark Beget, H Dale Beggs, PhD, O Beggs, Jana Begor, Nicholas Begovich, PhD, Francis J Behal, PhD, Pat Behm, Wallace B Behnke, Buriel A Behrens, Greg P Behrens, Herbert Ernest Behrens, Richard Behrens, PhD, John Behun, PhD, Rudi Beichel, Alan Beiderman, Henry Beilstein, PhD, Arthur B Reindorff, PhD, Walter F Beineke, PhD, Carl A Beiser, PhD, John Beitia, Paul Bekarik, Ihor Bekersky, PhD, Gary L Beland, Orris D Belanger, Abdeldjelil Belarbi, PhD
<HR><TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=2 border=0 NOWRAP><TBODY><TR><TD noWrap align=middle width=50 bgColor=#cccccc height=14>Top (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p334.htm#Top)</TD><TD noWrap align=middle width=50 bgColor=#cccccc height=14>Previous (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p334.htm#Message840)</TD><TD noWrap align=middle width=50 bgColor=#cccccc height=14>Next (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p334.htm#Message1045)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Kevin P Belcher, Ralph Belcher, PhD, Curtis Belden, Dan Beldy, Leo T Belill, Bruce Bell, PhD, C Allen Bell, Charles Bell, PhD, Gregory Bell, James M Bell, Jeffrey Bell, John Bell, PhD, John Bell, Linda S Bell, Mark R Bell, PhD, Robert Bell, Stephen W Bell, Thomas Bell, DVM, Wallace Bell, PhD, William Bell Jr, Zeb Bell, John C Bellamy, PhD, Joseph S Bellassai, Thomas E Bellinger, Robert Bellino, MD, Wade Bellon, Robert A Bellows, PhD, Daniel T Belmont, PhD, Stephen Belmont, PhD, Lawrence C Belnoski, E F Belohoubek, PhD, Randy Belstad, Delfin Beltran, MD, James Noble Bemiller, PhD, Paraskevi M Bemiller, PhD, John Ben, Robert D Benbow, Edward Benchik, Raymond L Bendure, PhD, Rudolf J Beneda, James H Benedict, PhD, Rettig Benedict, PhD, James F Benedum, James Benegne Jr, MD, David Benforado, Ashley Bengali, PhD, Ray Benge, Ford Benham, Carol Benhemdorf, H W Benischek, James A Benjamin, PhD, John Benjamin, PhD, Robert Benjamin, Michael Benkert, William Benne, PhD, Albert G Bennett Jr, PhD, Bennett, Charles Bennett, Donald W Bennett, Douglas A Bennett, G Bennett, PhD, Harold E. Bennett, PhD, John Bennett, MD, Joseph Bennett, RS Bennett, Thomas C Bennett, William W Bennett, John Bennetts, Paul A Bennington, Allan Bennison, Sharon Beniot, Alvin K Benson, PhD, Andrew A Benson, PhD, Fred C Benson, PhD, Gordon Benson, MD, Harold Benson, John D Benson, Robert Benson, Roger Benson, Sidney W Benson, PhD, William Benson, Ray Bentall, Jack Bentley, Jack C. Bentley, Kenton E Bentley, PhD, Allen W Benton, PhD, Wesley G Bentrude, PhD, Charles M Bentzen, Bernard D Benz, Edward J Benz, MD, Robert Benz, George Benzing, MD, Ray A Berard, PhD, John A Berberet, PhD, William Berberich, Warren Berce, E Paul Bercegeay, PhD, Hugh Berckmueller, MD, Andrew Berg, Edgard L Berg, J Berg, PhD, Laurence C Berg, MD, Ronald Berg, Louis Bergdahl, Maxmimilian H Bergendahl, PhD, Alan Berger, MD, Brian Berger, MD, Jay M Berger, PhD, Lev Berger, PhD, Louis Berger, Louis Berger, Otto Berger, Roger Berger, T F Berger, Arne Bergh, PhD, C. B. Bergin, Marion J Bergin, Ernest Bergman, Oswald R Bergmann, PhD, Warren C Bergmann, Dick Bergren, PhD, Mike Bergsmg, Rod Bergstedt, Robt Beringer, PhD, Robert Berkebile, MD, Donald C Berkey, Eric N Berkhimer, Dan Berkman, Willima Berks, Leland Berkwits, MD, John J Berky, PhD, David T Berlin, Brian Berman, Elliot Berman, PhD, Marshall Berman, PhD, Curtis L Bermel, John Wilfrid Bernard, Louis Bernath, PhD, Richard Bernhard, Andre Bernier, Warren W Berning, Joseph Bernstein, MD, Kenneth Bernstein, Julius R Berreth, Dave Berrier, Lester P Berriman, Dan Berry, Dan Berry, Edwin Berry, PhD, Edwin Berry, PhD, Herbert W Berry, PhD, James W Berry, PhD, Robert W Berry, PhD, Roy A Berry, PhD, William Berry, John R Berryhill, PhD, Charles F Bersch, M Bersch, PhD, Arthur Bershman, Albert C Bersticker, Charles W Bert, PhD, Allen J Bertagne, Robert G Bertagne, Bruce I Bertelsen, Kevin Bertermann, Siegfried R Berthelsford, MD, Frances Berting, PhD, Robert L Bertram, B. Rodney Bertramson, PhD, Bertrand, Rodney A Bertsch, Arlen D Besel, Kurt Von Besser, PhD, Robert Bessette, Robert Best, PhD, Robert C Beste, David U. Betcha, Arthur F Betchart, Jack Bethards, Robert K Bethel, Peter Bethell, Art L Bethke, PhD, Nedavia Bethlahmy, PhD, Harry E Betsill, George W Bettge, John Bettinger, MD, Andrew Betts, Austin Betts, Austin W Betts, Ernest Beutler, MD, Rowland S Bevans, PhD, Vladislav Bevc, PhD, Robert Beverly, Vicky L Bevilacqua, PhD, Vincent D Bevill, Albert J Bevolo, PhD, Cecil Bewner, John H Beyer, PhD, James Beyl, Peter R Beythen, MD, Rahul Bhaduri, Maneesh Bhatnagar, Swapan Bhattacharjee, PhD, Debanshu Bhattacharya, PhD, John M Biancardi, Peter Bianchetta, Kenneth L Del Bianco, Philip Bias, Vic Biazis, William R Bibb, PhD, George Bibel, PhD, Conrad Biber, PhD, Edward G Bich, Peter B Eichelberger, Hans Bichsel, PhD, Michael D Bick, PhD, Rudolf Bickel, MD, William S Bickel, PhD, Arden Bicker, Karin Bickford, Lewis J Bicking Jr, Ervin F Bickley Jr, William E Bickley, Donald Bickmore, A W Bickner Sr, John H. Biddle, Rh Biddle, Jean M Bidlace, PhD, Lawrence R Bidwell, PhD, Charles Bieber, John Bieber, Kenneth Bielat, PhD, Yan Bielek, Gregg Bierei, Theo Karl Bierlein, PhD, J Bierman, Joseph F Bieron, PhD, Jerry N. Biery, Doug N Biewitt, Jean M Bigaouette, Bigelow, PhD, John E Bigelow, Donald Bigg, PhD, James Biggs, PhD, R Dale Biggs, PhD, Rodney E Bigler, PhD, Arthur Bigley, William Bihrle, Dean Bilden, Keith Bildstein, PhD, John M Bilhorn, PhD, John D Shaylor- Billings, David L Billingsley Jr, Dan A Billman, George E Billman, PhD, Billones, D G Bills, PhD, John L Bills, PhD, Larry Bilodeau, Edward G Bilpuch, PhD, Robt Bilski, Jack Binford, Arthur Bing, PhD, Billy E Bingham, PhD, Nancy L Bigham, Lisa Binkley, Dan Binning, Layton C Binon, R L Binsley, William Bintzer, Michael Binzer, Biolchini, Frank S Riordan, PhD, Matthew C Birch, Michael A Birch, Norman Birch, M J Birck, Charles F Bird, Chris M Bird, Kenneth Bird, PhD, Peter Bird, E. F. Birdsall, PhD, Carmel Birdwell, Jack Birk, Wm Birkemeier, PhD, Kathleen Biros, Seymour Bristein, William Bisbing, Alfred F Bischoff, James L Bischoff, PhD, James M Bisett, Gerald E Bisgard, PhD, Amin Bishara, Bob Bishop, David Bishop, Dennis W Bishop, Floyd Bishop, George D Bishop, Guy W Bishop, PhD, John W Bishop, PhD, Marshall D Bishop, Raymond Bishop, Richard E Bishop, Richard H Bishop, PhD, Richard S Bishop, PhD, Larry Bisimmers, Kenneth Bisson, MD, J L Bitner, James Bitner, Joseph Bitsock, MD, Burt J Bittner, Walter E Bixby, Benny Bixenman, John Bixler, Thomas Bjerke, Charles Black, PhD, Charles E Black, Darvil Black, PhD, Dean Black, PhD, Dennis Black, Don Black, Donald E Black, Horlod Black, James R. Black, John S Black, Larry Black, Sammy M Black, Timothy Black, Tom Black, Wesley F Black, William Black, Albert W Blackburn, Brian D Blackburn, Jon Blackburn, Larry G Blackburn, Lloyd Blackburn, Clinton R Blackmon, James Blackmon, Jerry M Blackmon, Perry Blackstock, M L Blackwell, Eli W. Blaha, PhD, R G Blain, Alex Blaine, Blair, PhD, Charles M Blair, Edward Blair, Helen Blair, Katherine Blair, Leon F. Blair, Luther Blair, Mr Barry Blair, Paul V Blair, PhD, Bruce A Blake, George R Blake, PhD, Rolland L Blake, PhD, J Warren Blaker, PhD, Robert B Blakestad, Francis Blanc, Dave Blanchard, Doug Blanchard, Donald W Blancher, Lorraine T Blanck, C Dudley Blancke, William M Bland Jr, Philip J Blank, PhD, Robert Blanke, PhD, Dav Blankenhagen, John Blankenhorn, James Blankenship, Ron J Blanton, William Edward Blase, Nik Blaser, John Blasing, John R Blasing, Barbara Blass, PhD, Joel J Blatt, PhD, Robert C Blatz, Henry H Blau, PhD, Clyde Blauer, George A Blay, PhD, Stephen Blaylock, Gilbert K Bleck, Douglas Bledsoe, Larry J Bledsoe, W N Bledsoe, Sheldon J Bleicher, MD, Rodney Bleifuss, PhD, Carl Bleil, PhD, William Bleimeister, Daryl A Blessing, John Blethen, PhD, Robt E Blevins, Zegmund O Bleviss, PhD, Wm Blew, Charles William Blewett, PhD, David Blewett, Edward Blick, PhD, Victor J Bliden, PhD, Brian Bliss, Warren M Bliss, C James Blom, PhD, C R Blomberg, William Blomdahl, Duane Bloom, PhD, James A Bloom, George L Bloomsburg, PhD, Joe Bloomsburg, Stan Blossom, William V Bluck, James W Blue, PhD, M D Blue, PhD, Claire Bluestein, PhD, Aaron L Bluhm, PhD, Harold F Bluhm, Eugene Blum, Fred G. Blum, MD, John Blum, M Blumenberg, PhD, Naoma Blumer, G Bluzas, G. W. Elvernum, David L Bnalinski, Thomas A Boardley, Warren P Boardman, Joshua T Boatwright, John G Bobak, David A Bobaugh, Robert S Bobbitt, Jack E Bobek, Thomas C Boberg, PhD, Thomas M Bobik, Sergey Boblcov, Terry Bobo, Charles Bocage, Dave Bocchini, Fred Bock, PhD, Gene Bock, Jane Bock, PhD, Richard F Bock, Wayne D Bock, PhD, Gary Bockus, Bohdan Boczkaj, PhD, Stephen J Bodar, PhD, David E Boddy, PhD, Arthur P Bode, PhD, Loren E Bode, PhD, Kenneth Bodek, MD, Robert Boden, George Boder, Donald D Bodewig Jr, S Bodily, PhD, Larry P Bodin, Frank T Bodurtha, PhD, Willard A Bodwell, Marvin Boedeker, Carl R Boehane, Robert J Boehle, Frank R Boehm, Carl R. Boehme, Hollis Boehme, PhD, Eldron Boehmer, John Boehune, Howard Boeing, J Robert Boen, Jack E Boers, PhD, David H Boes, Philip D Bogdonoff, PhD, J Neil Boger, MD, Colleen Boggs, Johnny Boggs, Steven A Boggs, PhD, Leslie K Bogle, Seymour M. Bogdonoff, Kevin M Bohacs, PhD, Barry Bohannon, John Bohannon, Joseph Terril Bohanon, PhD, Carl Bohl, PhD, Richard A Bohling, James Bohn, William M Bohon, Kees Boi, PhD, Norman R Boisse, PhD, Charles E Boklage, PhD, Art F Boland, Jonathan Boland, Mike Boland, Paul W Boldt, Regnald A Boles, M S Boley, PhD, Mark S Boley, Mark S Boley, Nicholas C Bolgiano, PhD, Dean Bolick, John N Bolin, Gerald L Bolingbroke, PhD, Harry J Boll, PhD, Eugene Bollay, Paul V. Bollerman, Bruce Bollermann, Clay B Bollin, Edward H Bollinger, PhD, A Bollmeier
<HR><TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=2 border=0 NOWRAP><TBODY><TR><TD noWrap align=middle width=50 bgColor=#cccccc height=14>Top (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p334.htm#Top)</TD><TD noWrap align=middle width=50 bgColor=#cccccc height=14>Previous (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p334.htm#Message1044)</TD><TD noWrap align=middle width=50 bgColor=#cccccc height=14>Next (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p334.htm#Message1046)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Robert L Bolmer, Gerald J Bologna, Sam Bolognia, Carole Boltz, James Boltz, Kelsey Boltz, Sam Boltz, Dudley Bolyard, E Arthur Bolz, MD, H Joel Boman III, Jerry C Bommer, PhD, Blair Bona, PhD, Brad Bona, Glenn Bonacum, MD, Patrick L Bond, Stephon T Bond, PhD, Victor Bond, PhD, Walter D Bond, PhD, William Bond, James M Bondi, Terry Bonds, J R Bone, Susan Boner, Lee Bongirno, Lawrence P Bonicatto, L P Bonifaci, Anthony Bonner, PhD, Charles M Bonner, John Franklin Bonner, PhD, Marlowe Bonner, G Wayne Bonsell, Patrick V Bonsignore, PhD, Lewis Book, Raymond Book, Stephen A Book, PhD, Arnold B Booker, Jane M Booker, PhD, Noel Booker, Jerry L Boom, PhD, R J Boomex, Daniel R. Boone, Deidre Boone, Jack Boone, PhD, James Boone, PhD, Paul Boonen, PhD, Warren J Boord, Lawrence E. Boos, PhD, Arthur Booth, MD, Arthur S Booth Jr, MD, Bruce L Booth, PhD, David Booth, PhD, Richard Booth, Robt M Booth, E M Boothe, Jay M Bopp, Hamid Borazjani, PhD, Samia Borchers, MD, Bordeaux, PhD, Adam Bordelon, Charles Borden, Robert Borden, MD, L Bordenave, Stuart Boreen, J B Boren, PhD, Katarina Borer, PhD, Robert Borg, Frank R Borger, Philip Borgerding, Jerry Borges, Dan Borgnaes, PhD, W K Borgsmiller, MD, John W Boring, PhD, John A. Bork, Walter A Bork, Alex B Borkovec, PhD, Annette H Borkowski, Manfred Borks, PhD, Harold J Born, PhD, William Bornhorst, Robert C Bornmann, MD, Raul H Borrastero, David Borrownam, Borsari, Hanid Boruzzi, Theodore Bos, PhD, Randal S Bose, Benjamin A Bosher, Ronald Boshista, William E Bosken, Robert Bosler, Bosnak, Kenneth J Boss, PhD, Paul N Bossart, Peter B Bosserman, Robert Bosshart, PhD, Thomas Bossler, Robert Bossung, Howard Bost, PhD, Keith A Bostian, PhD, Steve Boswell, Steven T Boswell, William Bosworth, Askel A Bothner By, PhD, John N. Botkin, CJF Bottcher, PhD, Margurette E Bottje, PhD, William G Bottjer, Edmond M Bottorff, PhD, Truman A Botts, PhD, Geo I Bouadiieff, Jeffrey A Boucher, Michel Boudart, PhD, John H Boughton, PhD, John Boulet, MD, George Boulter, Robert L Boulware, Arnold H Bouma, PhD, Robert H Bourke, PhD, M N Golarz De Bourne, PhD, Sara Bouse, Mohamed Boutjdir, PhD, Harvey B Boutwell, R K Boutwell, PhD, Gerardus D Bouw, PhD, George S Bovis, Gary Bovyer, Rl Bowden, Anthony J Bowdler, PhD, Joseph C Bowe, PhD, David Bowen, H Kent Bowen, PhD, John T Bowen, Peter F Bowen, Richard Bowen, Richard D Bowen, Charles A Bower, PhD, John Roy Bower, PhD, Leonard Bower, PhD, Richard Bowerman, Christopher Bowers, Clarence Bowers, John Bowers, Larry Q Bowers, Robert C Bowers, Roger L Bowers, Susan H Bowers, MD, Sydney Bowers, Sidney A Bowhill, PhD, Robert M Bowie, PhD, Jean A Bowles, PhD, Kaydell C Bowles, Lamar D Bowles, Floyd E Bowling, Robert E Bowling, PhD, William Bowlus, MD, Charles Bowman, Harry Bowman, Harry G. Bowman, James L Bowman, Jan Bowman, John K Bowman, Lewis W Bowman, PhD, Marie Bowman, R Bowman, Robert S Bowman, PhD, Norman Bowne, Colin Bowness, PhD, Samuel Bowser, PhD, B W Box, James E Box, PhD, Roger Box, Chris M. Boxell, MD, Michael Boxer, MD, Kevin Boyack, PhD, Robert E Boyar, Boyatt, Boyyce, Graybeal & Sayre, Inc, David Boyce, John T Boyce, Wilson E Boyce, Frederick Mervin Boyd, PhD, J T Boyd, James Boyd, Jimmy W Boyd, John F Boyd, Philip A Boyd, PhD, Richard Boyd, Robert Boyd Iii, Timothy M Boyd, Willis Boyd, Gary Boyer, Lance Boyer, Paul S Boyer, PhD, Robert A Boyer, PhD, Robert E Boyer, PhD, Wm D Boyer, PhD, James A Boyes, Ralph L. Boyes, T M Boyett, Ben Boykin, Dave Boykin, John F Boyle, MD, Patrick Boyle, Richard J Boyle, John Boyles, MD, Bozlee, PhD, Ben Brabb, PhD, Dennis Brabec, Paige Bracci, John D Brack, Sherry L. Brackeen, Barth Bracken, Brett K Bracken, Robert G Brackett, PhD, David Brackney, Dorothy L Bradbury, James Bradbury, J Tj Braddock, Joseph U Braddock, PhD, Shawn Braden, Lawrence G Bradford, PhD, William C Bradford, Andrew N. Bradley, MD, Bruce Bradley, John Bradley, MD, Michael Bradley, Robert F Bradley, PhD, Robert S Bradley, William E Bradley, Charles Bradshaw, MD, George Bradshaw, Jerry A Bradshaw, Matin D Bradshaw, PhD, Samuel Bradshaw, W Newman Bradshaw, PhD, Derek Bradstreet, R Bradt, PhD, Bob Brady, John R Brady, Matthew E Brady, Robert Brady, S D Brady III, Samuel B Brady, Tom Brady, PhD, William Brady, DDS, William Brady, William J Brady, MD, Douglas G Braid, Alan D Brailsford, PhD, Arthur Van De Brake, Fred W Brakebusch, J C Brakensieck, Eric M Bram, David Brambury, Kenneth A Brame, Michael Bramwell, Erwin F Branahl, Emanuel L Brancato, Cynthia R Branch, Thomas Brandlein, Patrick J Brandner, MD, Stewart Brandon, Edward N Brandt, MD, Robert Brandt, Robert Brandt, Thomas Brandt, William Brandt, PhD, William L Brandt, Alan D Branham, M Branman, Raymond Brannan, PhD, Mike Brannen, Ross E Brannian, Carl F Branson, Albert W Brant, PhD, Charles W Brant, Glenn S Brant, Wm W Brant, Susan Brantley, Webb E Braselton, PhD, Bradley A Brasfield, John F Brass, George Bratton, PhD, Charles Bratzrus, Richard H Braumlich, David Braun, Jeffrey M Braun, Jennifer Braun, Kenneth Martin Brauner, PhD, Allan Brause, PhD, Johnny A Brawner, MD, Thoams Braxtan, MD, Ben Bray, PhD, Carl W. Bray, Bruce G Bray, PhD, William H Bray, MD, James F Brayton, PhD, James P Brazel, William Breach, Carl L Breaux, Ernest Breaux, Russell W Breaux, Theodore Breaux, Lee Brecher, PhD, Robert L Breckenridge, MD, Claude E Breed, Townsend Breeden, James Breeding, Larry Breeding, Reginald Breeding, Bertram V Breemen, William M Breene, PhD, Sydney Breese, Bob Breeze, Martin Bregman, PhD, E J Bregmann, William R Breher, William R Breher, John E Brehm Sr, B M Breining, C H Breitenfelder, Richard Breitling, Thomas O Breitling, Ted Breitmayer, A C Breller, James Breman, Bart J Bremmer, David L Brenda, William Breneman, Alan S. Brengle, Arthur Brennan, Harold Brennan, John P Brennan, Michael J Brennan, MD, William J Brennan, Ronald G Brenneman, Abner Brenner, PhD, Henry W Brenniman Jr, J Allen Brent, PhD, Paul D Brent, William B Brent, PhD, Frederick Breslin, PhD, John H Bress, M N Bressler, Pe, Inc, Joseph Breston, PhD, William A Brett, Kurt Bretterbauer, Randolph H Bretton, PhD, Harold W Bretz, PhD, Andrew J Breuder, MD, Charles B Breuer, PhD, Jerald Brevick, PhD, James Brewbaker, PhD, Clyde Brewer, Doug Brewer, Gregory J Brewer, PhD, Herbert L Brewer, J R Brewer, Ken N Brewer, Michael Brewer, Walter B Brewer, Doug Brewster, Robert N Brey, Robt N Brey, PhD, Edward Breyere, PhD, Darlene R Brezinski, PhD, P L Thibaut Brian, PhD, Alan G Bridge, PhD, Lindell Bridges, Luther W. Bridges, PhD, P M Bridges, Robert M Bridges, Andrew Briedenbach, Claudia Briell, Brian O Brien, Corale L Brierley, PhD, David A Brierley, James A Brierley, PhD, Arthur R Briggs, Edward M Briggs, James E Briggs, PhD, Mike Briggs, Mrs R O Briggs, Robert O Briggs, Steve Briggs, PhD, W Briggs, PhD, Robert B Brigham, Mont J Bright Jr, Karen Brignac, Mike Brignac, Tom Brignac, Bruce Edwin Briley, PhD, Karl Briley, Frank Brimelow, Clifton Briner, Allan Briney, MD, Robert Bringer, PhD, Donald F Brink, PhD, Edwin C Brinker, George W Brinker, Sandra Brinker, Tyler Brinker, Larry K Brinkman, MD, Raymond S Brinkmey, PhD, Michael Brinkmeyer, James Brinks, PhD, Thomas R Brinner, PhD, Richard K Brinton, Charles Des Brisay, R. Brisbin, Anne M Briscoe, PhD, James Briscoe, Mike Briscoe, Francis Brislawn, J O Brittain, PhD, Paul Brittain, Michael Brittan, PhD, Wayne Brittian, Michael W Britton, Robert Britton, Alfred C Broad, PhD, Hyrum S Broadbent, PhD, Robt C Broadbent, Sue Broadston, George Brock, H Kent Brock, Jeffrey Brock, Rainer Brocke, PhD, Douglas A Brockhaus, D Broderick, PhD, Ivor Brodie, PhD, JB Brodie, F S Broerman, Woody Brofman, PhD, Robert W Broge, PhD, Chirs Brioli, Jerome Bromkowski, MD, David A Bromley, PhD, Richard K Bronder, Tanya Broniszewski, Vin Brono, Charles E Bronson, Mark Bronson, John Bronstein, PhD, Mark Bronston, PhD, John Brook, PhD, Hampton R Brooker, Frank Brookings, Bruce Brooks, Dean C Brooks, Fred A Brooks, Gordon Brooks, James Brooks, James E Brooks, PhD, Kent Brooks, Lois Brooks, ND Brooks, Ray Brooks, Robert A. Brooks, PhD, Robert R Brooks, PhD, Richard Broschat, John R Brose, W E Broshears, Fred B Brost, Charles O Brostrom, PhD, James Brothen, Robert J Brotherton, PhD, Walter Brouillette, PhD, Paul C Broun, MD, Francis Broussard, Mary J Broussard, Matthew Broussard, Allen S Brower, George Brower, PhD, J Brower, Rick A Brower, Thomas D Brower, MD, Alan B Brwon, Albert L Brown, PhD, Apryl Brown, Arlen Brown, PhD, Bahngrell W Brown, PhD, Ben Brown, Billings Brown, PhD, Bob D Brown, Brad Brown, Brenda Brown, Bruce L Brown, C A Brown, Charles Brown, PhD, Charles Brown, Charles R Brown I I, Christopher J Brown, MD, David Brown, David P Brown, PhD, Donnie Brown, Doug L Brown, Douglas S Brown, Elise A Brown, PhD, Ellsworth Brown, PhD, Eugene Brown, Fitzhugh L Brown, G All Brown
<HR><TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=2 border=0 NOWRAP><TBODY><TR><TD noWrap align=middle width=50 bgColor=#cccccc height=14>Top (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p334.htm#Top)</TD><TD noWrap align=middle width=50 bgColor=#cccccc height=14>Previous (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p334.htm#Message1045)</TD><TD noWrap align=middle width=50 bgColor=#cccccc height=14>Next</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Gary L Brown, Gerald R Brown, PhD, Glenn Brown, PhD, Hal W Brown, Henry BR Brown, Henry S Brown, PhD, Herbert Brown, PhD, Howard Brown, J B Brown, J Paul Brown, James Brown, James Brown, James Brown, PhD, James Brown Jr, James M Brown, PhD, James S Brown, Jeremy J Brown, Jerry W Brown, PhD, Jim Brown, Jim Brown, John B Brown, John Brown, John D Brown, John F. Brown, John M Brown, PhD, John N Brown, John W Brown, Kenneth T Brown, PhD, Larry Brown, Leonard F Brown, Jr, PhD, Lewis F Brown, PhD, Lloyd L Brown, Melvin H Brown, PhD, Murray A Brown, PhD, N Brown, Olen Brown, PhD, P T Brown, Ralph Brown, Raymond E Brown, Richard B Brown, PhD, Richard Brown, Richard E Brown, MD, Richard L Brown, Robert B Brown, Robert Brown, PhD, Robert Brown, PhD, Robert E Brown, Robert E Brown, PhD, Robert G Brown, Robt A Brown, PhD, Robt C Brown, MD, Robt E Brown, Roderick B Brown, MD, Ronald Brown, PhD, Roy W Brown, S Kent Brown, MD, Stephen Brown, MD, Stephen R Brown, Steven Brown, Thomas V Brown, Walter R J Brown, Will Brown, William Brown, William M Brown, PhD, Cornelius P Browne, PhD, James Browne, Phillip Browne, MD, RL Browne, D Brownell, Don Brownfield, Shelby H Brownfield, Robt S Brownhill, James A Browning, Jimmy D. Browning, John S Brtis, Burton D Brubaker, PhD, James E Brubaker, Paul Eugene Brubaker, PhD, Peter Brubaker, Charles R Bruce, PhD, Dail Bruce, David Bruce, MD, George H Bruce, Paul L Bruce, Peter C Bruce, Sandra Bruce, Carl W Bruch, PhD, Kenneth B Bruckart, Robert Brueck, Col Wm Bruenner, Carl Bruice, Don Brumm, Harrison Brundage, Eugene J Brunelle, PhD, Madelyn Bruning, Lloyd Brunkhort, Charles E. Brunner, Mark S Brunner, Arthur D Bruno, John Bruno, PhD, Thomas Bruno, PhD, Kelly W Bruns, Lester G Bruns, PhD, Robert F Burns, PhD, Gerald R Brunskill, Tim Brunson, John B Brush, Walter Brush, Merlyn A Brusven, PhD, Frederick V Brutcher, Jr, PhD, Samuel R M Burton, Anthony Bruzzese, MD, David A Bryan, PhD, Gary G Bryan, Howard Bryan, John D Bryan, Sibley Bryan, Tom Bryan, Barry W Bryant, PhD, Carrel Bryant, David W Bryant, John H Bryant, John M Bryant, Michael D Bryant, PhD, Robert W Bryant, Thomas Bryant, Thomas Bryant, Charles Bryson, Ken Brzozowski, PhD, Charles B Bucek, Anne H Buchanan, Russell A Buchanan, Shawn P Buchanan, Steven Buchanan, Richard L Bucheit, Donald Buchholz, John H Buchholz, PhD, Smil S Buchman, R Buchy, Carl Buck, PhD, Ellen F Buck, Joel W Buck, Harold M. Buckey, John Buckinger, Tom Buckleitner, Ellis Bucklen, David A Buckley, Edward H Buckley, PhD, Jim E Buckley, Ronald E Buckley, Stuart Buckmaster, Donald Buckner, Gary L Buckwalter, PhD, Edsel T Bucovaz, PhD, J Fred Bucy, PhD, Roy S. Brucy, MD, Carl J Buczek, PhD, Perry Buda, Kevin Buddie, Teresa Buden, Wallace D Budge, PhD, Edwin Buehler, PhD, Elizabeth Buell, Mary M Buerger, Walter Buerger, MD, Brent J Buescher, PhD, Larry Buess, Greg Buffington, J F Buffington, Norris L Buffington Jr, Philip G Buffinton, Charles R Buffler, PhD, Rodger K Bufford, PhD, Sterling L Owe Bugg, Victor Buhrke, PhD, Francis Buiting, C James Bulla, Daniel Bullard, PhD, Ervin T Bullard, PhD, Paul Buller, Lloyd Bullerman, PhD, William Bullis, PhD, David Bullock, Lawrence E Bullock, Rich Bullock, Roy L. Bulls, Walter T Bulson, Bill Bumgarner, Paul L Bunce, MD, David Wm Bunch, PhD, Harry D Bunch, PhD, John Bunch, Wm H Bunch Jr, Robt W Bundick, Michael Bundra, Hallie Flowers Bundy, PhD, Stephen Bundy, Merle Bunker, PhD, H Franklin Bunn, MD, John Bunnell, Mark Bunnell, George J Buntley, PhD, Martin Bunton, Edward Buonopane, MD, Kenneth Burbank, PhD, James H Burbo, Paul Burbutis, Elisabeth Burch, Holly Burch, James C Burch, T L Burch, James J Burchall, PhD, Donald F Burchfield, PhD, Jacob Burckhard, Daivd Burdeaux, Harvey Burden, PhD, Robert Burdick, Hugh J Burford, PhD, Henry Burger, PhD, Philip C Burger, PhD, Robert Burger, Brian Burges, John C Burgeson, Calvin Burgess, John Burgess, Michael Burgess, Roy A Burgess, William Burgess, Roger C. Burggraf, Justin Burggraff, Ronald Burgher, PhD, Leonard F Burkart, PhD, Amy L Burke, Amy S. Burke, Burke, David T Burke, Kim A Burke, E A Burke, Edward W Burke, PhD, Gary Burke, J E Burke, PhD, Marty Burke, Richard L Burke, PhD, Walter Burke, John P Burkett, David S Burkhalter, Harold E Burkhart, PhD, Richard Burkhart, James F Burkholder, Brad Burks, Ralph Burks, Ned Burleson, PhD, David R Burley, PhD, R F Burlingame, Jay B Burner, Bryan Burnett, Craig Burnett, J R Burnett, PhD, John N Burnett, PhD, Peter G Burnett, Donald C Burnham, Robert Burnham, Robert W Burnop, Frank B Burns, PhD, John Burns, MD, Leslie L Burns, PhD, Michel S Burns, Robert Burns, Robt D Burns, PhD, Stanley Burns, Stephen R. Burns, Victor W Burns, PhD, Mike Burnson, William P Burpeau Jr, John F Burr, Michael Burrell, Steve Burrell, Greg Burrough, Joe Burroughs, W F Burroughs, Kevin Burrows, Richard S Burrows, PhD, William Burrows, PhD, Eddie Burt, PhD, Philip B Burt, PhD, B Burton, PhD, Gary Burton, Nancy Burton, Everett Burts, Calvin C Burwell, James Robert Burwell, PhD, John Burwell, Richard S Burwen, Alan Burwinkel, MD, Donald L Buscarello, Daniel A Busch, PhD, Edward G Busch, Neal Busch, PhD, Tom Busch, Rick Buschini, Gary D Buser, Robert Bush, Roger Bush, T Bush, Thomas Bush, Edwin F Bushman, Robert Bushnell, PhD, Timothy P. Bushnell, Robert Busing, Elsworth R Buskirk, PhD, Daniel H Buss, Duane J Buss, PhD, Robert Buss, MD, Stanley E Buss, Gregory Bussell, Ceil Bussiere, W V Bussmann, PhD, Susan Buta, Bill Butler, David Butler, Dennis L Butler, Don Butler, Fred Butler, George B. Butler, PhD, James Butler, James L Butler, PhD, Karl D Butler, PhD, Margaret K Butler, O Doyle Butler, Philip Alan Butler, PhD, Rhendal C Butler, Ronald Butler, Scott E Butler, PhD, T Butler, Thomas Butler, Wm R Butler, Paul Butman, Robert Buto, Stan Butt, Gordon B Butterfield, Thomas A Butterworth, PhD, Sidney E Buttrill, PhD, Carolyn Buttross, MD, Jake D Butts, Michael A Butts, Rodney G. Butts, Ralph O Butz, MD, E B Buxton, E B Buxton, Warren F Buxton, PhD, Cathy T Buzzo, Clinton Bybee, P D Bybee, Jr, P Edward Byerly, PhD, Nelson Byman, Donald G Bryant, PhD, Richard D Byrd, PhD, Robert C Byrd, W D Byrd, Bernard Byrne, PhD, Ken Byrne, William M. Byrne, PhD, John Byrnes, MD, Roy Byrom

[Naturalized-Texan]

The American National Academy of Sciences was one of the signatories of the statement, along with similar bodies in France, Japan, UK, Germany, Canada, China, Italy and Russia. This cannot be written off as junk science.
As I showed in an earlier post in this thread, the American National Academy of Sciences has concluded that there is too much uncertainty in the scientific evidence to conclude that global warming is caused by human activities.

NAS Climate Change Report (http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/)

THE EFFECT OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES

Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the observed warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it does not constitute proof of one because the model simulations could be deficient in natural variability on the decadal to century time scale. The warming that has been estimated to have occurred in response to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is somewhat greater than the observed warming. At least some of this excess warming has been offset by the cooling effect of sulfate aerosols, and in any case one should not necessarily expect an exact correspondence because of the presence of natural variability.

The cooling trend in the stratosphere, evident in radiosonde data since the 1960s and confirmed by satellite observations starting in 1979, is so pronounced as to be difficult to explain on the basis of natural variability alone. This trend is believed to be partially a result of stratospheric ozone depletion and partially a result of the buildup of greenhouse gases, which warm the atmosphere at low levels but cool it at high levels. The circulation of the stratosphere has responded to the radiatively induced temperature changes in such a way as to concentrate the effects in high latitudes of the winter hemisphere, where cooling of up to 5°C (9°F) has been observed.

There have been significant changes in the atmospheric circulation during the past several decades: e.g., the transition in climate over the Pacific sector around 1976 that was analogous in some respects to a transition toward more "El Niño-like" conditions over much of the Pacific, and the more gradual strengthening of the wintertime westerlies over subpolar latitudes of both Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Such features bear watching, lest they be early indications of changes in the natural modes of atmospheric variability triggered by human induced climate change. To place them in context, however, it is worth keeping in mind that there were events of comparable significance earlier in the record, such as the 1930s dust bowl.

It's important to remember that those who claim that global warming is caused by human activities are basing their conclusions entirely on climate models that can't even re-create past climate changes, even changes that have occurred in the past 25-30 years. If climate models can't even re-create past climate change, then those modes are totally invalid and can't possibly predict future climate change.

[sunsettommy]

From your favorite newspaper.



Read the full article here. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html?pagewanted=print)

You might automatically dismiss the article based on the source and its critical nature, but its probably better to suspend judgement until after you read it and think about it first. Hurrah for former petroleum lobbyists who influence our national environmental policies! Thats exactly what we need; to hell with the real scientists.

:hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha:

I like your style! Get political and magically Global Warming is proved.It is clods like you who go this route,hell with the UNTAINTED Climate Research!:laugh:

By the way,I noticed that you make NO reply to my disparaging the IPCC.

I refuse to register with the NYT as they are one of the WORST Offenders on the Global Warming topic.Their errors are so common,that I have considered them a poor source.They made a few incredibly awsome stupid articles that caused a lot of people to laugh at them.You are obviously a newbie to this topic.I have far better sources than the error filled science section of the NYT.

I have no interest in what the Oil lobby thinks.I use the old fashioned method of information,CLIMATE DATA! Do you know what that is?

Now why not bring up REAL NON politicised articles that make a coherent case for the idea that Mankind with CO2 is causing Global Warming.

It is revealing that you make NO comment on the post I made for Antartica Ice pack.The one this thread is about!:rolleyes:

QUESTION:

Do you agree that Antartica overall has a NET growth of Glacial Ice?

[sunsettommy]

Please tell me Organik and Markus the answer to this question:

Name the most abundant Greenhouse gas.

Giggle,
giggle.......

Giggle.

I have asked this VERY elementary question with over 500 people now and only about 10 got the correct answer.

You the rare next one?

[sunsettommy]

In terms of where the consensus lies, this pretty much settles it.

The science academies of the world's leading nations have urged their governments to take prompt action to combat possible climate change.

Their statement read: "It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities.


"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. "Action taken now to reduce significantly the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lessen the magnitude and rate of climate change."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4616431.stm

__________________________________________________ __________________

I just wish more conservatives would be honest about their rejection of climate change. Ultimately, if climate change is happening, and we wish to deal with it, it must be a multinational effort. As most conservatives oppose such an effort, they conclude that the science must be faulty. It's analogous to rejecting gravity because one doesn't like heights.

The American National Academy of Sciences was one of the signatories of the statement, along with similar bodies in France, Japan, UK, Germany, Canada, China, Italy and Russia. This cannot be written off as junk science.

I see that you are the latest hillbilly to swallow the idea of "Consensus Science".It is WORTHLESS! It takes only one person to OVERTURN a belief.

The true way to know what is true is BY THE EVIDENCE! Something a CCM is NOT! Just a tool that has not worked well.

It is to me disturbing when a body of Scientists clamor for Governments to do something about "Climate Change" (Climate is ALWAYS changing!).When there is NO settled understanding of the UNDERLYING causes of the current Slight warming we enjoy.

It is better to publish credible research in science journals and allow the scientists to respond to them.That is what they normally do,NOT go around lobbying Political leaders to do something about something that is not well understood.

[Naturalized-Texan]

organix & markus3622:

According to graphs compiled from temperature data from United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html) by Michael Crichton for his book, State of Fear, the only places in the world where temperatures have increased since 1930 are in major cities where heat is stored by all the concrete in the buildings in those cities. For example, the average temperatures in New York City increased by nearly 1 degree between 1930 and 2000. However, in smaller towns and cities in Upstate New York, the average temperatures DECLINED during the same period. The average temperatures in Albany, NY, declined by almost 1 degree between 1930 and 2000; the average temperatures in West point, NY, declined by 0.5 degrees; the average temperatures in Syracuse, NY, declined by more than 1 degree; the average temperatures in Oswego, NY, declined by almost 1 degree.

From 1822 to 2000, the temperature in New York City increased by more than 4 degrees, while temperatures in Albany, about 50 miles up the Hudson River, declined 0.5 degrees in the same period.

Scientists estimate from measurements such as these that more than one-half the increase in global temperatures in the past 100+ years is due to the heat stored by all of the concrete in buildings in major cities around the world.

So if any warming is caused by human activities, most of it is due to all the buildings that humans have built in major cities and not due to any greenhouse gases as the politically-motivated junk scientists claim.

I know the answer to sunsettommy's request, "Name the most abundant Greenhouse gas." but I'm not gonna tell. :)

[sunsettommy]

<CENTER>Ghostbusting Temperatures</CENTER><CENTER> </CENTER><CENTER style="MARGIN: 0px"></B></CENTER><CENTER style="MARGIN: 0px">By Eduardo Ferreyra</CENTER><CENTER style="MARGIN: 0px">President of FAEC</CENTER><CENTER style="MARGIN: 0px">August, 1<SUP>st</SUP>, 2004</CENTER><CENTER style="MARGIN: 0px"> </CENTER><CENTER style="MARGIN: 0px"> </CENTER>A search in temperature databases show no warming during the 20<SUP>th</SUP> century - and temperatures since the 1950s have been falling over most parts of the U.S.A. So, where's the warming? At least not in the United States.

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen4/Ghostbusting.html
Look in the link and you can get a STATE by STATE report.

[markus3622]

Consensus?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Leipzig_Declaration_on_Global_Clim ate_Change

:hahaha:

After discounting the signers whose credentials were inflated, irrelevant, false, or unverifiable, it turned out that only 20 of the names on the list had any scientific connection with the study of climate change, and some of those names were known to have obtained grants from the oil and fuel industry, including the German coal industry and the government of Kuwait

You can see for yourselves that many of the signatories are MDs - that means Medical Doctors!



As I showed in an earlier post in this thread, the American National Academy of Sciences has concluded that there is too much uncertainty in the scientific evidence to conclude that global warming is caused by human activities.

From the summary:

"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability."

This was updated in 2005 to

"It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities.
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action"

As I wrote, we know where the consensus is. I've got the National Academy of Sciences, whereas you've got twenty-five of the signers who were TV weathermen and Michael Crichton, an author of science fiction. Claiming otherwise is being willfully dishonest.

Regarding the most abundant greenhouse gas, as any fule noze, it's water vapour:thumb:

[Faithful_Servant]

Please tell me Organik and Markus the answer to this question:

Name the most abundant Greenhouse gas.

Giggle,
giggle.......

Giggle.

I have asked this VERY elementary question with over 500 people now and only about 10 got the correct answer.

You the rare next one?
I know!! I know!! Please pick me!! Can I say it, Puleeeaaasseee??


Here's a hint 2 letters, 1 number.

[Faithful_Servant]

Consensus?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Leipzig_Declaration_on_Global_Clim ate_Change

:hahaha:

After discounting the signers whose credentials were inflated, irrelevant, false, or unverifiable, it turned out that only 20 of the names on the list had any scientific connection with the study of climate change, and some of those names were known to have obtained grants from the oil and fuel industry, including the German coal industry and the government of Kuwait

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.

Here's the As from the list of 2660 Physicists, Geophysicists, Climatologists, Meteorologists, Oceanographers, and Evironmental Scientists Signers

Philip H Abelson, PhD, Gene Ackerman, Robert K Adair, PhD, John A Adam, PhD, Daniel B Adams Jr, Gail D Adams, PhD, Leonard C A Adams, PhD, Louis W Adams, PhD, Neil Adams, PhD, William M Adams, PhD, George Adcock, Lionel P Adda, PhD, Harry Adrounie, PhD, Stephen Affleck, PhD, Phillip Ahlberg, Mark Ahlert, Rafique Ahmed, PhD, S Aisenberg, PhD, Edward Albert, James C Albright, PhD, Allwyn Albuquerque, Ernest C Alcaraz, PhD, Ronald G Alderfer, PhD, Perry B Alers, PhD, John C Alexander, Moorad Alexanian, PhD, Roger C Alig, PhD, Clayton H Allen, PhD, David Allen, PhD, James Allen, PhD, Mike R Allen, PhD, Thomas H Allen, PhD, William Allen, John J Allport, PhD, Vincent O Altemose, Melvyn R Altman, PhD, Edward E Altshuler, PhD, Charles D Amata, PhD, Edward J Ames III, Pierre Saiut- Amond, PhD, Arthur G Anderson, PhD, Berard J Anderson, PhD, James R Anderson, James R Anderson, Ken Anderson, Orson L Anderson, PhD, P Jennings Anderson, Richard A Anderson, PhD, Richard C Anderson, Tom Anderson, Douglas Andress, James F Andrew, PhD, Bradley C Anthanaitis, PhD, Lee S Anthony, PhD, Lynn Apple, PhD, Alan Appleby, PhD, Herbert S Appleman, Morris H Aprison, PhD, Richard E Apuzzo Jr, Philip Archibald, Robert Archibald, John Archie, William Bryant Ard, PhD, Harold V Argo, PhD, Baxter H Armstrong, PhD, Robert Emile Arnal, PhD, Charles Arney, Casper J Aronson, Jose J D Arruda, PhD, James Arthur, PhD, Max Artusy, PhD, Edward V Ashburn, Randolph Ashby, PhD, Jerome P Ashman, Monroe Ashworth, Orv Askeland, Ronald Attig, Leonardo D Attorre, Luther Aull, PhD, John B Aultmann Jr, William Avera, Frank Averill, PhD, Kenneth Avicola, M Friedman Axler, William Aylor,


In short, you are a liar. You lied. You prevaricated. You spoke an untruth. You are full of shit. I call BS on you.
Truth............................................. ........................................Markie

You can tell all of the lies you want to, but it won't change the truth, Markie. Now, go back try to find an intelligent source for your information that isn't in the pockets of the socialist environuts.

[markus3622]

No, it is the advocates of the project that are the dishonest ones.

Here is a statement on it from the National Academy of Sciences.

The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.

The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.


http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/s04201998?OpenDocument

Even if the petition wasn't dishonest (which is very unlikely), you're still dealing with 17,000 being reduced to 2,500 scientists who work in fields in that might be related to climate change, and you include physicists (who are as likely to be working on String Theory as they are to be working on climate change). Do you know how many scientists there are in the US? How many meteorologists? How many climatologists?

In short, as per usual with these right wing tricks, the petition has been clearly discredited by the experts working in the field.

The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not. The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in an renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations.


Again, my facts are backed by the NAS, yours by a right wing think tank in Oregon.

[Naturalized-Texan]

markus3622:

Why do you keep lying and quoting proven liars? As the NAS climate change panel wrote in the link I posted above, there is no consensus that global warming is caused by human activities.

The only "scientists" who claim otherwise are pseudo-scientists who have prostituted themselves on the altar of world socialism under UN control. You know that is case as well as I do, so why do you persist in quoting those proven liars who make their bogus climate-change projections based on invalid climate models that can't even replicate past climate change?

[markus3622]

Why do you keep lying and quoting proven liars?

Tex, I quoted the summary of the report you posted. Do you consider NAS "known and proven liars"?

""Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability."

As noted, this comes from the 2001 report, and as further data have been accumulated, the latest statement from the NAS in 2005 is clearer. I could post it again, or I could direct you back.

The point is that NAS, and similar bodies from the G8, as well as the EPA, IPCC suggest that there is consensus that

1) Greenhouse gas concentrations are rising
2) Temperatures are rising
3) That much of this rise is most likely due to human activities
4) Some of this variation could be due to natural variation

[markus3622]

This first one is a killer that rips your arguments to shreds.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)

(You may not have access)
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Naomi Oreskes<SUP>*</SUP> (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)#affiliation)


Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)#ref1)). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)#ref2)). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)#ref3)). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)#ref4))].



IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)#ref5))]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)#ref5))].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)#ref6)), the American Geophysical Union (7 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)#ref7)), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)#ref8)).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref9)).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.




-----------------------------------------------------------------

This second one is just for fun

-----------------------------------------------------------------

From Science

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/5515/270?view=abstract

Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans </HW_HEADLINE><HW_SEE>


<NOBR><HW_AUTHOR>Tim P. Barnett,</HW_AUTHOR><SUP>*</SUP></NOBR> <NOBR><HW_AUTHOR>David W. Pierce,</HW_AUTHOR></NOBR> <NOBR><HW_AUTHOR>Reiner Schnur</HW_AUTHOR></NOBR> <HW_INSERT><HW_TWIS>Large-scale increases in the heat content of the world's oceans have been observed to occur over the last 45 years. The horizontal<SUP> </SUP>and temporal character of these changes has been closely replicated<SUP> </SUP>by the state-of-the-art Parallel Climate Model (PCM) forced by<SUP> </SUP>observed and estimated anthropogenic gases. Application of optimal<SUP> </SUP>detection methodology shows that the model-produced signals are<SUP> </SUP>indistinguishable from the observations at the 0.05 confidence<SUP> </SUP>level. Further, the chances of either the anthropogenic or observed<SUP> </SUP>signals being produced by the PCM as a result of natural, internal<SUP> </SUP>forcing alone are less than 5%. This suggests that the observed<SUP> </SUP>ocean heat-content changes are consistent with those expected<SUP> </SUP>from anthropogenic forcing, which broadens the basis for claims<SUP> </SUP>that an anthropogenic signal has been detected in the global climate<SUP> </SUP>system. Additionally, the requirement that modeled ocean heat<SUP> </SUP>uptakes match observations puts a strong, new constraint on anthropogenically<SUP> </SUP>forced climate models. It is unknown if the current generation<SUP> </SUP>of climate models, other than the PCM, meet this constraint.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[markus3622]

To sum up, I have on my side

1) National Academy of Sciences -

National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).

2) American Meteorological Society

American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).

3) American Geophysical Union

American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).

4) American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

http://www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html

5) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).

I also have published science. Of 928 papers published between 1993 and 2003 in peer-reviewed journals, 75% accepted the concensus, 25% took no position and not one rejected the consensus. You have articles in the Spectator and the Oregon Petition Project.

Now if you continue pretending that no consensus exists, I will know that you are either being dishonest or not reading the sources I supply.

Given all this, can I ask you when you decided that global warming was "pseudo-science"?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Tex, I quoted the summary of the report you posted. Do you consider NAS "known and proven liars"?

""Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability."

As noted, this comes from the 2001 report, and as fu