60 German Scientists Dissent Over Global Warming Claims!
Climate Depot ^ | August 4, 2009 | Marc Morano



'Consensus' Takes Another Hit! More than 60 German Scientists Dissent Over Global Warming Claims! Call Climate Fears 'Pseudo 'Religion'; Urge Chancellor to 'reconsider' views.

'Growing body of evidence shows anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role'

Tuesday, August 04, 2009 - By Marc Morano – Climate Depot More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The more than 60 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists.

The scientists declared that global warming has become a “pseudo religion” and they noted that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures. The German scientists, also wrote that the “UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.”

This latest development comes on the heels of a series of inconvenient developments for the promoters of man-made global warming fears, including new peer-reviewed studies, real world data, a growing chorus of scientists dissenting (including more UN IPCC scientists), open revolts in scientific societies and the Earth's failure to warm. In addition, public opinion continues to turn against climate fear promotion. (See "Related Links" at bottom of this article for more inconvenient scientific developments.)

The July 26, 2009 German scientist letter urged Chancellor Merkel to “strongly reconsider” her position on global warming and requested a “convening of an impartial panel” that is “free of ideology” to counter the UN IPCC and review the latest climate science developments.

The scientists, from many disciplines, including physicists, meteorology, chemistry, and geology, explain that “humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles.”

“More importantly, there's a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role,” the scientists wrote. “Indeed CO2's capability to absorb radiation is already exhausted by today's atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree,” they added.

“The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility,” the scientists wrote.

“Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003. Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred,” the scientists wrote.

“The belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion,” the scientists wrote. “The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming,” they added.

“Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard

The vast majority; thousands of scientists and NOAA, all agree global warming exists...

Once again your expertise fails to win out in the field of global warming as with everything else. I'm still waiting on someone to find something your not an expert in.

I think I'll stick with James Spann and those 60 German Scientists until you prove your credentials are more impressive than theirs.. harry.

If we can arrange a debate at the civic center between you (harry) and James Spann would you agree to participate? I thought not.Mr Spann would be glad to work that into his busy schedule.

Why are you such a disagreeable troll? Most trolls on other sites sometimes have a sense of humor which is something you have never shown on here.

"I think I'll stick with James Spann and those 60 German Scientists until you prove your credentials are more impressive than theirs.. harry."

But Harry was not setting himself up as an expert. He was citing:

"thousands of scientists and NOAA, all agree global warming exists"

And that's true. The vast majority of the scientific community recognizes that we are speeding up the natural cycle of our climate by pumping tons of c02 into the atmosphere. Period. Just a fact.

If you prefer to listen to a weatherman and 60 Germans, that's certainly your perogative.

Al Gore claims virtually all scientists blame humans for global warming when in fact there are vast differences among scientists, including more and more every day who believe global warming is a sham.. Not surprisingly, those scientists who believe in global warming are those who have large government grants to study the issue whereby findings of global warming yields more grants to study the problem further.

"But Harry was not setting himself up as an expert."

harry is an expert in global warning as well as healthcare,military matters, the economy or anything else you can think of. He has a brilliant mind and that's why we call him "harry the magnificent".

.

"He most likely just listens to those who are."

He most likely just listens to those who are making a ton of cash off global warming as Al(doofus)Gore is.Follow the money.

You don't have the brain-power to blow your nose.

For a snapshot of the government and business interests intertwined in the rise of green capitalism, consider Al Gore. He's getting rich from environmentalism, not just by being paid a whopping $US175,000 a speech but by using political pressure to force government policy in a direction that benefits his business interests.

Gore is chairman of the Alliance for Climate Protection, an outfit that seeks to "persuade people of the importance, urgency and feasibility" of going green. It recently launched a $US300 million ad campaign to coax American people and politicians to embrace the carbon-lite lifestyle.

But Gore is also chairman of a greeninvestment firm called Generation Investment Management, which is a member of the Copenhagen Climate Council, an international collaboration of businesses and science bodies, and which invests in firms that produce renewable energy and low-carbon technology. So Gore uses one of his multimillion-dollar organisations, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to put pressure on government to promote the low-carbon lifestyle that will furnish one of his other multimillion-dollar organisations, General Investment Management, with booming business.

Gore's activities provide only a glimpse into the new collusion between greens, businesses and government. So speedily has this network come together that according to one critic of the politics of environmentalism, Bjorn Lomborg, it is not going too far to liken the new green-industrial complex to the military-industrial complex that president Dwight Eisenhower warned of in the 1950s.

Governments across the world are promoting green ideology and economics on the back of the recession. President Barack Obama has spoken of a "green revolution" and spending $US150 billion to create five million "green-collar" jobs. As a result, the race is on among green-leaning businesses to snap up new government contracts and among not-so-green businesses to improve their green-industrial credentials in the hope of reaping government cash.

Yet the international evidence suggests the attempt to create green jobs will hamper economic recovery. Obama cited Spain as a country where green jobs have improved economic matters. In fact, according to a study by a professor of economics at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, for every green job created by the Spanish government in recent years, an average of 2.2 other jobs were destroyed to make way for it. Furthermore, green jobs tend not to be permanent; in Spain, only 1 in 10 green jobs exists for a significant period.

In Britain, green-industrial activists have used their political clout and scientific research, much of it derived from studies that underpin the business-science alliance of the Copenhagen Climate Council, to pressure the government to adopt a green new deal. In response, Gordon Brown announced in April that he would create 400,000 green jobs and a "low-carbon economy".

Yet his figures don't add up. The Brown government imagines that by 2015 it will have created 39,600 new jobs in geothermal energy, 74,900 in the development of alternative fuels, 25,300 in solar power and 69,300 in the construction of wind turbines. Yet, as a result of Britain's debilitating crisis of credit, the renewables industry, in which tens of thousands of new jobs are apparently going to be created, is in a dire state. Five of Britain's biggest wind-energy projects have been abandoned or put on hold indefinitely and British Petroleum recently cut 620 jobs in its solar-energy division because it wasn't profitable. As journalist Christopher Booker argues, Brown's "green revolution" is "babyish make-believe".

The Spanish and British experiences suggest Obama should not so enthusiastically sign up for the creation of a post-recession US informed by the politics and prejudices of the green-industrial complex. But, then, Obama and other leaders' embrace of the green-industrial complex is not about effecting real change, far less about making economies properly more productive. Rather, it is about instituting a new political outlook, one in which government intervention on the side of science-exploiting, globally conscious corporations becomes the solution to contemporary problems.

Indeed, green activists talk openly about the recession being a good thing. A leading European scientist whose views inform the Copenhagen Climate Council recently said, "It's a cruel thing to say ... but if we are looking at a slowdown in the economy, there will be less fossil fuels burning, so for the climate it could be an advantage."

This captures the complex's cavalier attitude towards individual hardship and its disdain for anything other thanbig government-big business solutions. This is about creating a new mission for the elite while enforcing a culture of low horizons among the "little people".

We should remember that the green-industrial complex's business interests played a role in bringing about the recession. The company whose collapse precipitated the credit crunch, Lehman Brothers, enthusiastically embraced the idea of carbon trading, which is held up by all members of the green-industrial complex as the way forward. In its 2007 report, The Business of Climate Change: Challenges and Opportunities, Lehman expressed hope that it might become a "prime brokerage for (carbon) emissions permits", meaning it aspired to make money not only from speculating in mortgages but also from trading in thin air.

Lehman was inspired by European carbon-trading schemes. Under the plan first proposed in the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 and introduced in Europe in the early and mid-2000s, the EU and UN allocated to industry legal titles to emit a certain amount of CO2. Because the titles are transferable and because large numbers were allocated to large corporations when the licenses were first introduced, there arose a market in carbon trading. Powerful businesses were able to sell their CO2 permits to smaller companies that needed to emit a certain amount of CO2.

Many smaller public institutions suffered as a result.

In Britain, for example, the University of Manchester forked out pound stg. 92,500 for CO2 permits - and when the carbon-trading market hit the recession and the value of CO2 permits fell, the university would be doing well, said one report, "if it managed to get pound stg. 1000 for the lot of them".

The green-industrial complex's transformation of CO2 into a tradeable commodity empowered large corporations over smaller ones.

Now there are calls for an international carbon-trading regime. The World Bank has proposed that it broker "carbon rights" between the developed and developing world. In the already international and informal world of "carbon offsetting", wealthy individuals in the West pay large sums to charities that fund "eco-friendly" farming and industry in the developing world. It was recently revealed that Prince Charles has made donations to a charity that encourages Indian farmers to use foot pumps rather than machinery to draw water for their crops. In short, guilt-ridden rich people are paying poor people to stay poor so that they can continue living carbon-rich lives over here.

Formalising such an unequal relationship with international brokerage of carbon-emission rights would be a disaster, a form of eco-slavery.

Far from ushering in a brighter future, the green-industrial complex's activities hinder economic experimentation, individual initiative and human aspiration. Theirs is a recipe for economic stagnation rather than recovery and for a new form of politics dominated by an elite green clique and closed off to us mere mortals.

Resistance is futile! You will comply!

He would wither under Mr. Spanns argument. He's a simple dolt who who's all talk and no action.

You think that the weatherman is an intellectual? What a joke. And, hey...aren't you guys always blasting 'them danged liberal inteelekchuls?"

I was simply saying you were not an intellectual and Mr. Spann was and that you were way out of his league. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

James Spann would mop the floor with harry the socialist.

harry would get to see just how stupid he really is and maybe he would shut his ignorant mouth.

A freaking weatherman is a paragon of wisdom for hillbillies.

A freaking person who is unknown (harry) is a paragon of wisdom for you communists.

The scientists told me it was coming 40 years ago. Idiots then, idiots now.

Find links indicating what scientists told us forty years ago!

I'm not wasting my time looking on the internet for "proof". I lived it. Research yourself.

Little Ice Age: Big Chill.:

Scientists call it the Little Ice Age--but its impact was anything but small. From 1300 to 1850, a period of cataclysmic cold caused havoc. It froze Viking colonists in Greenland, accelerated the Black Death in Europe, decimated the Spanish Armada, and helped trigger the French Revolution. The Little Ice Age reshaped the world in ways that now seem the stuff of fantasy--New York Harbor froze and people walked from Manhattan to Staten Island, Eskimos sailed kayaks as far south as Scotland, and "the year without a summer" saw two feet of snow fell on New England one June and July.


Could another catastrophic cold snap strike in the 21st century? Leading climatologists offer the latest theories, and scholars and historians recreate the history that could be a glimpse of things to come. Face the cold, hard truth of the past--an era that may be a window to our future.

http://shop.history.com/detail.php?p=69311

We're beginning to see some bring out the ice age scare from the 70's again. The global warming snake oil isn't selling as well as it used to.

It is gonna be hot today