Willie Soon and David Legates, both respected members of the American Geophysical Union, tell the story of how their planned session to discuss scientific papers that consider the many contributing factors to climate variability was a "go," until suddenly it wasn't.
Willie Soon and David Legates, both respected members of the American Geophysical Union, tell the story of how their planned session to discuss scientific papers that consider the many contributing factors to climate variability was a "go," until suddenly it wasn't:
We developed this session to honor the great tradition of science and scientific inquiry, as exemplified by Galileo when, 400 years ago this year, he first pointed his telescope at the Earth’s moon and at the moons of Jupiter, analyzed his findings, and subsequently challenged the orthodoxy of a geocentric universe. Our proposed session was accepted by the AGU.
In response to its acceptance, we were joined by a highly distinguished list of scientists – which included members of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, France and China, as well as recipients of the AGU’s William Bowie, Charles Whitten and James MacElwane medals. Our participants faithfully submitted abstracts for the session.
But by late September, several puzzling events left us wondering whether the AGU truly serves science and environmental scientists – or simply reflects, protects and advances the political agendas of those who espouse belief in manmade CO2-induced catastrophic global warming.
Could this AGU position have anything to do with it?
The scientific consensus on climate change was expressed in an open letter sent to the US Senate on last Wednesday, 21 October....
While the signatories represent a wide variety of scientific disciplines, they all came together to express their concern over anthropogenic climate change. The letter states: “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."
What about the independent lines of evidence of no global warming the last ten years, which the vast body could not see below their extended gut?
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
The speech our President should make.
A noted economist fires back.
How political can you get?
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Stan Redmond| 11.16.09 @ 4:05PM
Too much money on the line to let global warming go.
Tim| 11.16.09 @ 4:27PM
Dogma.
Pete| 11.16.09 @ 4:27PM
Like a Vegas gambler, these criminals are just spreading the risk. They know that if just one of their schemes hits (Healthcare, Global Warming, etc...), they will be rich and powerful for a long, long time.
Yosemeti Sam| 11.17.09 @ 1:26AM
Thermometers!
Key?!
Their GPS coordinates, please!
In the thousands? Millions?
Who are/have been those who collect their readings?
Where, when and how many readings are collected and relied upon for however many years as numbers input to man-made programs in mad-made computers to - garbage in garbage out -
extrapolate the behavior of the dynamic non-man-made continuum of butterfly climate adjustments occurring simultaneously across the breadth of planet Earth?
Proponents of lucrative global warming propaganda -climate tea-leaf readers or genuine celebrity teabaggers ?
juylllo| 3.9.10 @ 9:25PM
I have bookmark it!hope for your arctical more!