05.11.2014 Views

Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global ...

Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global ...

Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

alternative to climate catastrophism. Indeed, if Schwartz's results are correct, that alone<br />

would be enough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC's scientific ‗consensus', the<br />

environmentalists' climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction<br />

policies that have become so popular with the world's environmental regulators, elected<br />

officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?"<br />

AEI's Schwartz concluded.<br />

Chemist Dr. Franco Battaglia, a professor of Environmental Chemistry at the<br />

University of Modena in Italy and co-author of a book critical of the modern<br />

environmental movement titled Green Outside, Red Inside: Deception of<br />

Environmentalists. The book was co-authored with Dr. Renato Angelo Ricci, emeritus<br />

professor of physics at the University of Padua and honorary president of the Italian<br />

Society of Physics. Battaglia dismissed man-made global warming fears as "trivial."<br />

Battaglia mocked that notion that we live in "a world where the colorless, odorless, taste,<br />

harmless CO2, food plants and therefore our food was at the same rank of radioactive<br />

waste." "A world where a trivial global warming is currently less than what [Viking] Erik<br />

the Red faced when he colonized Greenland" during the Medieval Warm Period," Battaglia<br />

wrote on September 2, 2007 in the Italian newspaper Il Giornale. "Our energy needs put<br />

CO2 into the atmosphere (at least until we decide to produce at 100% over nuclear), he<br />

explained. Battaglia also referred to the Kyoto Protocol as "stupid." (translated) (LINK)<br />

* Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute's Royal<br />

Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a<br />

decisive role of CO2 in global warming. The press release about the study read, "CO2 is<br />

not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. This is the conclusion of a<br />

comprehensive scientific study done by the Royal Meteorological Institute, which will be<br />

published this summer. The study does not state that CO2 plays no role in warming the<br />

earth." "But it can never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to it," Luc<br />

Debontridder said according to the August 2007 release. "Not CO2, but water vapor is the<br />

most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect.<br />

This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody<br />

seems to take note of it," Debontridder explained. "Every change in weather conditions is<br />

blamed on CO2. But the warm winters of the last few years (in Belgium) are simply due to<br />

the 'North-Atlantic Oscillation'. And this has absolutely nothing to do with CO2," he added.<br />

(LINK) [ Note: Though Debontridder dampened climate fears with such quotes as<br />

“There's no need either to needlessly frighten the public. Bruges will not be on the<br />

coastline by 2050,” he reportedly claims he was not translated correctly in media reports<br />

from 2007 and his climate views were incorrectly reported. (LINK) ]<br />

Australian climate data analyst John McLean authored a September 2007 study<br />

which found the UN IPCC peer-review process is "an illusion." A September 2007<br />

analysis of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientific review<br />

process entitled "Peer Review? What Peer Review?" revealed very few scientists are<br />

actively involved in the UN's peer-review process. According to McLean's analysis, "The<br />

IPCC would have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of<br />

scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report. Analyses of reviewer<br />

comments show a very different and disturbing story." The paper continued, "In [the<br />

IPCC's] Chapter 9, the key science chapter, the IPCC concludes that 'it is very highly likely<br />

202

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!