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?
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org
Ten years of near climate stablity is evidence that shows that the driver of the increasing temperature is not strong if it can be easily canceled or reversed with a negative force such as El Nino.
Correction of above–spelling of last word should be El Nina.
Ten years of near climate stablity is evidence that shows that the driver of the increasing temperature is not strong if it can be easily canceled or reversed with a negative force such as El Nina.
Ten years of near climate stablity is evidence that shows that the driver of the increasing temperature is not strong if it can be easily canceled or reversed with a negative force such as La Nina.
Comments on this entry are closed.