30 Mar 2009, 4:08pm
Climate and Weather
by admin

More than 100 Scientists Rebuke Obama as ‘Simply Incorrect’ on Global Warming

from ICECAP, Mar 30, 2009 [here]

Note: Many of the scientists are current and former UN IPCC reviewers and some have reversed their views on man-made warming and are now skeptical. Also note Nobel Laureate for Physics Dr. Ivar Giaever signed. Giaever endorsed Obama for President in an October 29, 2008 letter.

Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. — President-Elect Barack Obama, November 19, 2008

With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.

We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.

After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.

The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.

Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.

Signed by over 100 scientists (see list [here]).

31 Mar 2009, 12:25pm
by Mike


People living in the UP of Michigan will not agree with the President either. We have had record cold after record cold all winter !

31 Mar 2009, 2:31pm
by Larry H.


DANG! Lookit all them PHD’s!!

Hey, if the courts can shutdown the building of coal power plants because of CO2 emissions, why can’t they shutdown the Let-Burn programs because of the very same thing?? Why can’t we get just one lawyer to sign on with us and reap the court costs? I would think an injunction would be very easy to come by, since the impacts are so very visible and easy to display to the court. A lower court would very quickly return a decision siding with us. The higher courts would have trouble defending an opposing view, considering the evidence and precedents set.

*name

*e-mail

web site

leave a comment


 
  • Colloquia

  • Commentary and News

  • Contact

  • Follow me on Twitter

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • Meta