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

greenhouse effect hasn't been important in the last half a million of years," Motl wrote.
"For whatever reason, some people are not willing to accept this obvious conclusion. That's
why they invent various bizarre verbal constructs to circumvent the otherwise inevitable
conclusion," Motl noted. "However, there are other ways to see that the influence of
temperature on the concentration of gases has been more important than any influence in
the opposite direction. For example, the ice core records show that the concentration of
methane was correlated with temperature, too. If the CO2 concentration were the primary
cause, we would have no explanation why the CH4 (Methane) concentration was also
correlated. In fact, CO2 and CH4 play the very same role in the ice core records. If some
combination of them determined the temperature, we would still have no explanation why
these two concentrations were correlated with one another," Motl added. (LINK)
Team of Scientists Question Validity of a 'Global Temperature' - From a March 18,
2007 article in Science Daily: "Discussions on global warming often refer to 'global
temperature.' Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an
impossibility, says Physicist Dr. Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr
Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with
professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross
McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada." The Science Daily article reads, "It is
impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate
of Earth." "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the
climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive
the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate."
He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature statistics locally, it is meaningless
to talk about a global temperature for Earth. "The globe consists of a huge number of
components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to
calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking
about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two
countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate.'"
The article concludes, "These are but two examples of ways to calculate averages. They are
all equally correct, but one needs a solid physical reason to choose one above another.
Depending on the averaging method used, the same set of measured data can
simultaneously show an upward trend and a downward trend in average temperature. Thus
claims of disaster may be a consequence of which averaging method has been used, the
researchers point out." (LINK)
Geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington
University, who has authored eight books and 150 journal publications, chastised Gore
for his scientific inaccuracies. "But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are
seeing, and we have to temper that with real data," Easterbrook said in a March 13, 2007
New York Times article. "[Easterbrook] hotly disputed Mr. Gore's claim that ‗our
civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this'
threatened change.
"Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed
temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the
medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to ‗20 times greater than the warming
in the past century.' Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore's assertion that scientists agreed
on global warming except those industry had corrupted. ‗I've never been paid a nickel by
222