Scientists Rebut Claim That Man Causes Climate Change

[웃 910]

Scientists Rebut Claim That Man Causes Climate Change

Monday, October 12, 2009

By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – As the world focused on President Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, a small group of determined scientists gathered in a Senate office building to present evidence backing their claim that climate change is caused not by man but by nature, and that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but the hope for a greener planet.

John Kwapisz, organizer and moderator at the panel discussion, recalled Obama’s speech at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, Pa., last month as a way of illustrating the dramatic tone used by those who embrace global warming as a dire and eminent threat.

“That so many of us are here today is a recognition that the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing,” Obama said on Sept. 22 at the summit. “Our generation's response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it -- boldly, swiftly, and together – we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.”

“No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline,” Obama said. “More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent. More frequent droughts and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive.”

“On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees,” he said. “The security and stability of each nation and all peoples – our prosperity, our health, and our safety – are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.”

The scientists said they were on Capitol Hill to challenge the president’s claims and show that Mother Nature controls climate around the world and that CO2 in the atmosphere benefits people, plants and animals.

“Nature, not human activity rules the planet,” said Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist and research professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. “And once you’ve decided that on the basis of evidence, then everything else falls into place.”

“A lot of the problems that President Obama seems to be concerned about are no longer a concern,” Singer said.

“When there’s more carbon dioxide put into the air, the plants respond in an astonishing fashion,” said H. Leighton Steward, geologist, environmentalist, author and founder of the Web site plantsneedco2.org.

Steward said that since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in 1860, the amount of CO2 put into the air has increased average plant growth by 12 percent and average tree growth by 18 percent around the world.

“So if we want to green the earth,” Steward said, “we need to put more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It’s the earth’s greatest airborne fertilizer.”

“If we want the ecosystems and the habitats to be more robust and hold more animal life, more plant life, we need to put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” Steward said, adding that proponents of man-made global warming have given CO2 a bad name.

“It’s now being looked at and called a pollutant. I can tell you, I’ve asked every scientist that I’ve ever run into, chemical expert,” Steward said. “There is not one, I repeat, not one instance in which carbon dioxide is a pollutant.”

Roy W. Spencer, researcher at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, author, and a former senior scientist at NASA, presented his research on natural global warming and cooling, including the role that cloud cover and the sun play in the changes of the earth’s climate.

In keeping with scientific protocol, much of the presentation consisted of graphs, charts, and other data to make the case that much of climate change is the result of natural phenomenon rather than human activities and that any contribution by humans is miniscule.

The event on Capitol Hill was not without a political twist, with some global warming advocates speaking out during the question-and-answer period. One scientist from NASA claimed he was available after the discussion if anyone was interested in hearing the other side of the issue.

Many in the room laughed at his comment, but the crowd that gathered in the Rose Garden just moments earlier heard Obama use his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech as an opportunity to again issue a warning about the threat of global warming.

“We cannot accept the growing threat posed by climate change, which could forever damage the world that we pass on to our children – sowing conflict and famine; destroying coastlines and emptying cities,” Obama said.

Marc Morano, former congressional staffer and founder of the Web site climatedepot.com, told the crowd that he thinks the tide is turning against what he called global warming alarmists. He cited a call by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to hold a global warming trial.

“The Chamber seeks to have a complete trial ‘complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect,’” Morano wrote in an editorial he distributed at the event.

H. Leighton Steward holds up his book as he speaks to a crowd on Capitol Hill about the benefits of CO2 to the planet, people, plants and animals. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

Fred Singer, founder and chairman of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, holds up a book "Climate Change Reconsidered" that contains hundreds of scientific studies that dispute global warming and CO2 as a pollutant that causes global warming. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

[웃 910]

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You realize this is nothing more than political ploys, most likely funded by the Coal and Oil industries because Congress is getting closer to voting on a Climate Change bill?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You realize this is nothing more than political ploys, most likely funded by the Coal and Oil industries because Congress is getting closer to voting on a Climate Change bill?

Anyone concerned with climate change should be PLEASED by this good news and the government should jump all over this and verify it is true so we can all rest easier about our children's future. It is for the children! If it is ignored, sweot under the rug or dismissed as political games, it exposes the other side as being conserned only in goevernment control

To the conservatives...STAY THE ** outta my bedroom! All that naughty stuff you don't approve of IS FUN!

To The Liberals...STAY THE ** outta my garage, refrigerator, wallet, all of my body (not just uteruses), and my kids education! We are all doing fine, now buzz the ** off!

And if anyone can find any of that global warming stuff...send it up to Vermont will ya? It is supposed to SNOW tonight.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Loud and clear. The sheep are followers though and will go with what their grand leader tells them to.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

How dare you all blaspheme at the altar of the delta smelt gods?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[Danno 1,228]

You realize this is nothing more than political ploys, most likely funded by the Coal and Oil industries because Congress is getting closer to voting on a Climate Change bill?

Considering all this "global warming" came to an end a decade ago....these "political Ploys"

must have been a -long time in the making-

[dalegg 143]

Didn't they just give the President an award for solving global warming?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You realize this is nothing more than political ploys, most likely funded by the Coal and Oil industries because Congress is getting closer to voting on a Climate Change bill?

Considering all this "global warming" came to an end a decade ago....these "political Ploys"

must have been a -long time in the making-

You're right, Danno. The scientific consensus on Climate Change is a communist plot to take away your car and make you ride around on a bicycle, made in China no less.

Don't let those communists at Science Journal try to brain wash you, Danno! Stand firm in your ignorance!

Well...look at their propagandist lies if you must, but don't let this sway your flat earth mentality.

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).

....

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)]. 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)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), 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).

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).

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.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

....

http://science-mag.aaas.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

What? Not one voice of dissent among the findings? Has to be a Conspiracy. Grab your guns and run for the hills!

Edited October 13, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[Dakine 26]

Very SIMPLE. Man is an animal and a BIG part of nature!!

[DIARD 1]

Ok first off. This article come from CNSNEWS which is like a liberal posting an article from Mother Jones and expecting everyone to take it seriously.

Secondly one of the sources is laughable. H. Leighton Steward is a veteran oil industry executive and has started a group with Corbin J. Robertson Jr. (chief executive of and leading shareholder in Natural Resource Partners, a coal resource owner that lets other companies mine in return for royalties) Called CO2 is Green. They have plenty of $$$ reasons to see climate change legislation killed. Bit of a conflict of interest there.

Personally I am more concerned at the moment with air quality as it relates to pollution. The air is unhealthy for most of the year not far from me. Heck during the summer they tell you to limit your time out of doors because the air is so bad. We definitely need to clean it up, stop using fossil fuels in vehicles and limit the factories pumping it out.

[Scott & Lai 12]

We definitely need to clean it up, stop using fossil fuels in vehicles and limit the factories pumping it out.

What alternatives are there?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We definitely need to clean it up, stop using fossil fuels in vehicles and limit the factories pumping it out.

What alternatives are there?

Bicycles. We'll all be healthier.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Liberals know: