The fear mongering global warming crowd has lost its grip of terror on 400 scientists who have spoken out in a new report published by the U.S Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works
. The scientists hail from many different countries and some are former members of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) and refuse to be intimidated by the title of "Global Warming Denier" that echoes the comparison of "Holocaust Denier" and the call by some alarmists to put the deniers into a Nuremberg-style war crimes trial.
A monger is a broker or dealer who makes monetary gains from his or her chosen dealings. Logically a fear monger brokers in fear, and gains monetarily from the spread of fear. The global warming crowd has procured 50 billion dollars
in funding since 1990, while the skeptical crowd has only gained 19 million from the company of Exxon Mobile and a few thousand on record for expenses generated by reports from skeptics.
This year a green fund
was established to "turn" skeptics
Richard Widows, a financial ratings analyst from thestreet.com writes
Not everyone is sold on environmentalism, but it's hard to argue with the returns of some mutual funds that invest in "green" companies. The recent performance of the Allianz RCM Global EcoTrends Fund (AECOX) should convert skeptics faster than a code-red air-quality alert.
The $131 million fund has appeared in the top 10% of stock funds for several months this year. It advanced 28.13% in the six months through August, smartly outperforming the 5.71% total return of the S&P 500 over the same period.
Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate Environment & Public Works committee, explained how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears and so-called solutions.
“In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one.”
James Spann, a meteorologist certified by the American Meteorological Society, implies that monetary gain is the reason for the alarmist postulation on global warming.
"Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story," Spann wrote on January 18, 2007. (LINK) "Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab," Spann added.
This comment was in response of the call for decertification of people like James Spann who do not kowtow to the information of the man-made global warming crowd.
Experts believe the fear mongering is a result of the money being made by promoters of the environmental movement.
(However,)Denis G. Rancourt professor of physics and an environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, believes the global warming campaign does a disservice to the environmental movement.
... promoting the global warming myth trains people to accept unverified, remote, and abstract dangers in the place of true problems that they can discover for themselves by becoming directly engaged in their workplace and by doing their own research and observations. It trains people to think lifestyle choices (in relation to CO2 emission) rather than to think activism in the sense of exerting an influence to change societal structures. The first involves finding a comfort zone consistent with one’s values whereas the latter involves accepting confrontation and risk in order to challenge power structures. The first is needed for welfare, as are community, friendship, etc., while the second is needed to create sanity and justice in an insane world.
In that sense, the global warming myth is a powerful tool of co-optation that has even eroded one of the most fertile grounds of political activism: the environmental movement.
Further evidence of the benefit of the man-mad global warming stance can be seen in the attempts to tax citizens base on their "carbon footprint."
A new MIT study concludes that the Sanders-Boxer approach would impose a tax-equivalent of $366 billion annually, or more than $4,500 per family of four, by 2015. And the annual costs will grow after 2015
The UN has also jumped
on the bandwagon and suggested a global carbon tax. Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, says the tax would generate $10-40 billion per year and that the United States and other industrialized nations would bear the burden.
Many scientists and main stream media players claim that there are not as many skeptics as there seem to be.
Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): “While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case.
However, the 400 are not alone in their views and many claim more colleagues do not see a man made climate changes but are afraid to come clean. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem expressed this intimidation in a hearing done by the EPA in July over threats received by man made climate change skeptics.
“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor indicated.
The hearing was initiated over an e-mail threat sent to Marlo Lewis from the president of the environmental group the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), Michael T. Eckhart.
The e-mail stated that Eckhart meant to destroy the career of Lewis senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
You are so full of crap.
You have been proven wrong. The entire world has proven you wrong. You are the last guy on Earth to get it. Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.
Michael T. Eckhart
American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
Indeed that sentiment was echoed by CNN’s Miles O’Brien (July 23, 2007):
The scientific debate is over.” “We're done." O’Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.”
The current UN ICPP report on the issue of global warming was only presided over by 52 scientists who were not the full representation of the current dichotomy in the community.
New reports circulate on a daily basis bring the masses into a war of education and reeducation on the current state of environmental affairs. The scientific community is notorious for having conflicting views on almost every subject, but a conflicting view on the environment could prove damaging and not just to mother earth.
Political careers are being made and broken on promises (or the lack-thereof) to address environmental concerns. The very inkling of skepticism on the part of a politician or scientist is drawing out radical claims of traitor by advocates of the man made climate change theory.
Get rid of all these rotten politicians that we have in Washington, who are nothing more than corporate toadies," said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmentalist author, president of Waterkeeper Alliance and Robert F. Kennedy's son, who grew hoarse from shouting. "This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.
It took great conviction in the face of ridicule for the reported 400 prominent scientists to take their stand in 2007. The report highlights
the findings of respected scientists on the current global warming crisis and claims to have debunked the consensus of the UN IPCC summary.
The first notable skeptic explains the findings behind his views.
Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!" Paldor told EPW on December 4, 2007. "Second, our ability to make realizable (or even sensible) future forecasts are greatly exaggerated relied upon by the IPCC. This is true both for the numerical modeling efforts (the same models that yield abysmal 3-day forecasts are greatly simplified and run for 100 years!)," Paldor explained. "Third, the rise in atmospheric CO2 is much smaller (by about 50%) than that expected from the anthropogenic activity (burning of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas), which implies that the missing amount of CO2 is (most probably) absorbed by the ocean. The oceanic response to increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere might be much slower than that of the atmosphere (and is presently very poorly understood). It is quite possible that after an ‘adjustment time' the ocean (which contains far more CO2 than the atmosphere) will simply increase its biological activity and absorb the CO2 from the atmosphere (i.e. the atmospheric CO2 concentration will decrease)," he added. "Fourth, the inventory of fossil fuels is fairly limited and in one generation we will run out of oil. Coal and natural gas might take 100-200 years but with no oil their consumption will increase so they probably won't last as long. The real alternative that presently available to humanity is nuclear power (that can easily produce electricity for domestic and industrial usage and for transportation when our vehicles are reverted to run on electricity). The technology for this exists today and can replace our dependence on fossil fuel in a decade! This has to be made known to the general public who is unaware of the alternative for taking action to lower the anthropogenic spewing of CO2. This transformation to nuclear energy will probably rake place when oil reserves dwindle regardless of the CO2 situation," he wrote. Paldor also noted the pressure for scientists to bow to the UN IPCC view of climate change. "Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," he concluded.
Another skeptic feels that global warming is not all man-made although man has had some influence.
Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid," Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007. "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural," Kukla explained. Kukla "said that the accelerating warming of the Earth is not caused by man but by the regularities of the planets' circulation around the Sun," according to a June 4, 2007 article in the Prague Monitor. "The changes in the Earth's circulation around the Sun are now extremely slow. Moreover, they are partially being compensated by the human impact on the climate. I think we will know more in about 50 years," Kukla said. Kukla is viewed as a pioneer in the study of solar forcing of climate changes.
Eugenio Hackbart expresses that global climate change is natural and happening but it is not limited to global warming.
Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo - Rio Grande do Sul - Brazil declared himself a skeptic. "The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming," Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007. "I believe we have the duty to inform people about the true facts of global warming. It is interesting that is this global warming era of hysteria we just lived a very cold week with snow in the higher elevation of Southern Brazil and that the next week could be even colder with low temperatures not seen in this part of the globe during the month of May in the last 20 to 30 years. It is not only South Africa that is freezing. South America is under a sequence of cold blasts not seen since the very cold climatic winter of 2000 (La Niña)," Hackbart concluded. In a June 5, 2007 article, Hackbart noted that the "historical cold events in Southern Brazil (in 1957, 1965, 1975, 1984, 1996 and 2006) have another aspect in common. They all took place around the 11-year sun cycle solar minimum.