LIIAN KAUAN JO HELTEITÄ PERKELE

Eivät ne meidän esi-isät vaellelleet tänne Pohjolaan helteiden vuoksi vaan nimenomaan mukavasta viileydestä nauttimaan. Täällä ei silloin ihan jokainen vinkuintiaani olisi pärjännyt talvella, toisin kuin nyt kun fatta maksaa lämpimät asunnot ja ruoat.

Helle on velttoperseisten laiskiaisten keli!

*** kirjoitti:

Eivät ne meidän esi-isät vaellelleet tänne Pohjolaan helteiden vuoksi vaan nimenomaan mukavasta viileydestä nauttimaan. Täällä ei silloin ihan jokainen vinkuintiaani olisi pärjännyt talvella, toisin kuin nyt kun fatta maksaa lämpimät asunnot ja ruoat.

Helle on velttoperseisten laiskiaisten keli!

Siihen saatte kuitenkin tottua, että tulevaisuudessa helteiden määrä kasvaa kiitos ilmaston lämpenemisen.

Kesäihminen kirjoitti:

Siihen saatte kuitenkin tottua, että tulevaisuudessa helteiden määrä kasvaa kiitos ilmaston lämpenemisen.

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/2339/uahmsufl2.jpg

Leuto talvi on automaattisesti todiste ihmisen aiheuttamasta ilmastonmuutoksesta. Jos jossain päin maailmaa on kuitenkin normaalia kylmempi talvi, johtuu se siitä että ilmastonmuutos lisää ääri-ilmiöitä.

Helteinen kesä on myös aukoton todiste lämpenevästä ilmastosta. Harmittavasti kylmäksi ja sateiseksi jäävä kesä on taas todiste ihmisen sekoittamasta ilmastosta.

IlmastonlämpenemisJIHAD jiihaa
http://stix1972.typepad.com/stix_blog/images/2007/03/21/algore_prophet.jpg

O_o

talven lapsi kirjoitti:

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/2339/uahmsufl2.jpg

Leuto talvi on automaattisesti todiste ihmisen aiheuttamasta ilmastonmuutoksesta. Jos jossain päin maailmaa on kuitenkin normaalia kylmempi talvi, johtuu se siitä että ilmastonmuutos lisää ääri-ilmiöitä.

Helteinen kesä on myös aukoton todiste lämpenevästä ilmastosta. Harmittavasti kylmäksi ja sateiseksi jäävä kesä on taas todiste ihmisen sekoittamasta ilmastosta.

IlmastonlämpenemisJIHAD jiihaa
http://stix1972.typepad.com/stix_blog/images/2007/03/21/algore_prophet.jpg

O_o

Juu, se on totta, että ääri-ilmiöt lisääntyvät ilmaston lämmetessä, mutta on ennustettu, että kylmät ääri-ilmiöt eivät juurikaan lisääntyisi, koska ilmasto lämpenee.

Kesäihminen kirjoitti:

Juu, se on totta, että ääri-ilmiöt lisääntyvät ilmaston lämmetessä, mutta on ennustettu, että kylmät ääri-ilmiöt eivät juurikaan lisääntyisi, koska ilmasto lämpenee.

Siinä on kuvattu lämpenemisjihadistien kehäpäätelmät joissa päädytään aina samaan lopputulokseen. Lue uudestaan ;)

Kesäihminen kirjoitti:

Juu, se on totta, että ääri-ilmiöt lisääntyvät ilmaston lämmetessä, mutta on ennustettu, että kylmät ääri-ilmiöt eivät juurikaan lisääntyisi, koska ilmasto lämpenee.

Auringon aktiivisuudesta:
http://ilmastonmuutos.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/aurinkopilkut-ja-avaruussaa.gif

äää-Nimimerkki on jo rekist... kirjoitti:

Auringon aktiivisuudesta:
http://ilmastonmuutos.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/aurinkopilkut-ja-avaruussaa.gif

Se on kuitenkin täysin höpöhöpö puhetta, että tulevaisuudessa Suomen ilmasto kylmenisi! Ilmastomme lämpenee tulevaisuudessa, se on vissi ja varma. Suomen ilmaston lämpenemisestä on jo monia todisteita. Lisäksi lähes kaikki ilmastotutkijat uskovat, että ilmastomme lämpenee, ja enemmistö ei voi olla väärässä.

Kesäihminen kirjoitti:

Se on kuitenkin täysin höpöhöpö puhetta, että tulevaisuudessa Suomen ilmasto kylmenisi! Ilmastomme lämpenee tulevaisuudessa, se on vissi ja varma. Suomen ilmaston lämpenemisestä on jo monia todisteita. Lisäksi lähes kaikki ilmastotutkijat uskovat, että ilmastomme lämpenee, ja enemmistö ei voi olla väärässä.

Ja heti menit metsään väittämällä kaikkien tiedemiesten olevan lämpenemishuuhaan kannalla.

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda
'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses'

Posted: May 19, 2008
8:51 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.

But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.

(Story continues below)

"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson. Robinson, a research professor of chemistry, co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973, and later co-founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. He also publishes the Access to Energy newsletter.

WND submitted a request to Gore's office for comment but did not get a response.

Robinson said the dire warnings about "global warming" have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are actually endangering people.

"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he said.

In just the past few weeks, there have been various allegations that both shark attacks and typhoons have been sparked by "global warming."

The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, "The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds."

"This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful," he wrote.

Accompanying the letter sent to scientists was a 12-page summary and review of research on "global warming," officials said.

"The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries," Seitz wrote.

Robinson said the project targets scientists because, "It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice."

He said the "global warming agreement," written in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, and other plans "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

"Yet," he said, "the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher.

"The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged," he continued. "During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.

"These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity," he said. "Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.

"The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy," he said.

He told WND he believes the issue has nothing to do with energy itself, but everything to do with power, control and money, which the United Nations is seeking. He accused the U.N. of violating human rights in its campaign to ban much energy research, exploration and development.

"In order to alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent future emergencies, we need to remove the governmental restrictions that have caused this problem. Fundamental human rights require that U.S. citizens and their industries be free to produce and use the low cost, abundant energy that they need. As the 31,000 signatories of this petition emphasize, environmental science supports this freedom," he said.

The Petition Project website today said there are 31,072 scientists who have signed up, and Robinson said more names continue to come in.

In terms of Ph.D. scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the U.N.'s campaign to "vilify hydrocarbons," officials told WND.

"The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it," the organization noted.

The project was set up by a team of physicists and physical chemists who do research at several American institutions and collects signatures when donations provide the resources to mail out more letters.

"In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists," the website said.

The petition is needed, supporters said, simply because Gore and others "have claimed that the 'science is settled' – that an overwhelming 'consensus' of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement."

The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master's level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

The Petition Project's website includes both a list of scientists by name as well as a list of scientists by state.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

Lopeta itse se höpöhöpö!

löölklkölk kirjoitti:

Ja heti menit metsään väittämällä kaikkien tiedemiesten olevan lämpenemishuuhaan kannalla.

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda
'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses'

Posted: May 19, 2008
8:51 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.

But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.

(Story continues below)

"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson. Robinson, a research professor of chemistry, co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973, and later co-founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. He also publishes the Access to Energy newsletter.

WND submitted a request to Gore's office for comment but did not get a response.

Robinson said the dire warnings about "global warming" have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are actually endangering people.

"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he said.

In just the past few weeks, there have been various allegations that both shark attacks and typhoons have been sparked by "global warming."

The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, "The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds."

"This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful," he wrote.

Accompanying the letter sent to scientists was a 12-page summary and review of research on "global warming," officials said.

"The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries," Seitz wrote.

Robinson said the project targets scientists because, "It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice."

He said the "global warming agreement," written in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, and other plans "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

"Yet," he said, "the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher.

"The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged," he continued. "During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.

"These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity," he said. "Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.

"The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy," he said.

He told WND he believes the issue has nothing to do with energy itself, but everything to do with power, control and money, which the United Nations is seeking. He accused the U.N. of violating human rights in its campaign to ban much energy research, exploration and development.

"In order to alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent future emergencies, we need to remove the governmental restrictions that have caused this problem. Fundamental human rights require that U.S. citizens and their industries be free to produce and use the low cost, abundant energy that they need. As the 31,000 signatories of this petition emphasize, environmental science supports this freedom," he said.

The Petition Project website today said there are 31,072 scientists who have signed up, and Robinson said more names continue to come in.

In terms of Ph.D. scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the U.N.'s campaign to "vilify hydrocarbons," officials told WND.

"The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it," the organization noted.

The project was set up by a team of physicists and physical chemists who do research at several American institutions and collects signatures when donations provide the resources to mail out more letters.

"In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists," the website said.

The petition is needed, supporters said, simply because Gore and others "have claimed that the 'science is settled' – that an overwhelming 'consensus' of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement."

The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master's level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

The Petition Project's website includes both a list of scientists by name as well as a list of scientists by state.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

Lopeta itse se höpöhöpö!

http://ilmastonmuutos.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/ilmakehan-lapipaastama-sateily.gif

Kesäihminen kirjoitti:

Se on kuitenkin täysin höpöhöpö puhetta, että tulevaisuudessa Suomen ilmasto kylmenisi! Ilmastomme lämpenee tulevaisuudessa, se on vissi ja varma. Suomen ilmaston lämpenemisestä on jo monia todisteita. Lisäksi lähes kaikki ilmastotutkijat uskovat, että ilmastomme lämpenee, ja enemmistö ei voi olla väärässä.

http://ilmastonmuutos.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/lampotila-ja-co2-geoajassa.gif

Kesäihminen kirjoitti:

Se on kuitenkin täysin höpöhöpö puhetta, että tulevaisuudessa Suomen ilmasto kylmenisi! Ilmastomme lämpenee tulevaisuudessa, se on vissi ja varma. Suomen ilmaston lämpenemisestä on jo monia todisteita. Lisäksi lähes kaikki ilmastotutkijat uskovat, että ilmastomme lämpenee, ja enemmistö ei voi olla väärässä.

Pikemminkin joukossa tyhmyys tiivistyy kun on helpompi uppoutua joukkohysteriaan kuin ajatella ihan itse.

löölklkölk kirjoitti:

Ja heti menit metsään väittämällä kaikkien tiedemiesten olevan lämpenemishuuhaan kannalla.

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda
'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses'

Posted: May 19, 2008
8:51 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.

But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.

(Story continues below)

"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson. Robinson, a research professor of chemistry, co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973, and later co-founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. He also publishes the Access to Energy newsletter.

WND submitted a request to Gore's office for comment but did not get a response.

Robinson said the dire warnings about "global warming" have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are actually endangering people.

"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he said.

In just the past few weeks, there have been various allegations that both shark attacks and typhoons have been sparked by "global warming."

The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, "The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds."

"This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful," he wrote.

Accompanying the letter sent to scientists was a 12-page summary and review of research on "global warming," officials said.

"The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries," Seitz wrote.

Robinson said the project targets scientists because, "It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice."

He said the "global warming agreement," written in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, and other plans "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

"Yet," he said, "the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher.

"The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged," he continued. "During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.

"These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity," he said. "Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.

"The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy," he said.

He told WND he believes the issue has nothing to do with energy itself, but everything to do with power, control and money, which the United Nations is seeking. He accused the U.N. of violating human rights in its campaign to ban much energy research, exploration and development.

"In order to alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent future emergencies, we need to remove the governmental restrictions that have caused this problem. Fundamental human rights require that U.S. citizens and their industries be free to produce and use the low cost, abundant energy that they need. As the 31,000 signatories of this petition emphasize, environmental science supports this freedom," he said.

The Petition Project website today said there are 31,072 scientists who have signed up, and Robinson said more names continue to come in.

In terms of Ph.D. scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the U.N.'s campaign to "vilify hydrocarbons," officials told WND.

"The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it," the organization noted.

The project was set up by a team of physicists and physical chemists who do research at several American institutions and collects signatures when donations provide the resources to mail out more letters.

"In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists," the website said.

The petition is needed, supporters said, simply because Gore and others "have claimed that the 'science is settled' – that an overwhelming 'consensus' of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement."

The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master's level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

The Petition Project's website includes both a list of scientists by name as well as a list of scientists by state.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

Lopeta itse se höpöhöpö!

Kaveri on aivan oikeassa. Suomen ilmasto lämpenee takuuvarmasti. TV-uutisetkinhan puhuu koko ajan vaan ilmaston lämpenemisestä, eikä käytännössä sanallakaan ilmaston kylmenemisestä. Ja mä uskon uutisia, en sua. Eli sulla taas oli noita höpöhöpö juttuja.

BUAHAHAHAHA kirjoitti:

Pikemminkin joukossa tyhmyys tiivistyy kun on helpompi uppoutua joukkohysteriaan kuin ajatella ihan itse.

Tässä asiassa enemmistö on oikeassa. Ja tilastot osoittavat, että Suomen vuotuinen keskilämpötila on jo noussut joten miksi se ei nousisi myös tulevaisuudessa.

löölklkölk kirjoitti:

Ja heti menit metsään väittämällä kaikkien tiedemiesten olevan lämpenemishuuhaan kannalla.

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda
'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses'

Posted: May 19, 2008
8:51 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.

But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.

(Story continues below)

"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson. Robinson, a research professor of chemistry, co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973, and later co-founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. He also publishes the Access to Energy newsletter.

WND submitted a request to Gore's office for comment but did not get a response.

Robinson said the dire warnings about "global warming" have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are actually endangering people.

"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he said.

In just the past few weeks, there have been various allegations that both shark attacks and typhoons have been sparked by "global warming."

The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, "The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds."

"This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful," he wrote.

Accompanying the letter sent to scientists was a 12-page summary and review of research on "global warming," officials said.

"The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries," Seitz wrote.

Robinson said the project targets scientists because, "It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice."

He said the "global warming agreement," written in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, and other plans "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

"Yet," he said, "the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher.

"The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged," he continued. "During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.

"These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity," he said. "Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.

"The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy," he said.

He told WND he believes the issue has nothing to do with energy itself, but everything to do with power, control and money, which the United Nations is seeking. He accused the U.N. of violating human rights in its campaign to ban much energy research, exploration and development.

"In order to alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent future emergencies, we need to remove the governmental restrictions that have caused this problem. Fundamental human rights require that U.S. citizens and their industries be free to produce and use the low cost, abundant energy that they need. As the 31,000 signatories of this petition emphasize, environmental science supports this freedom," he said.

The Petition Project website today said there are 31,072 scientists who have signed up, and Robinson said more names continue to come in.

In terms of Ph.D. scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the U.N.'s campaign to "vilify hydrocarbons," officials told WND.

"The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it," the organization noted.

The project was set up by a team of physicists and physical chemists who do research at several American institutions and collects signatures when donations provide the resources to mail out more letters.

"In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists," the website said.

The petition is needed, supporters said, simply because Gore and others "have claimed that the 'science is settled' – that an overwhelming 'consensus' of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement."

The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master's level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

The Petition Project's website includes both a list of scientists by name as well as a list of scientists by state.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

Lopeta itse se höpöhöpö!

Tässä on faktoja

http://www.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/ilmastonmuutos/suomessa.html

ja tässä

http://www.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/ilmastonmuutos/suomessa_17.html

ja vielä tässä

http://www.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/ilmastonmuutos/suomessa_18.html

Kumpi meistä puhuikaan höpöjä?

Kesäihminen kirjoitti:

Tässä on faktoja

http://www.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/ilmastonmuutos/suomessa.html

ja tässä

http://www.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/ilmastonmuutos/suomessa_17.html

ja vielä tässä

http://www.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/ilmastonmuutos/suomessa_18.html

Kumpi meistä puhuikaan höpöjä?

Hae vähän muualtakin "faktaa" ilmastosta kuin tuolta fmi:stä joka nojautuu ipcc:n arpomisiin.

Kerro jotain.

Heippa kirjoitti:

Tässä asiassa enemmistö on oikeassa. Ja tilastot osoittavat, että Suomen vuotuinen keskilämpötila on jo noussut joten miksi se ei nousisi myös tulevaisuudessa.

Fakta on ettei sitä tiedä yksikään Homo Sapiens tällä planeetalla että mihin suuntaan ilmasto muuttuu kun ilmaston mekaniikkaa ei tunneta. Kaikki väitteet suuntaan tai toiseen ovat pelkkiä arvioita.

Vähiten löytyy uskoa politisoituun propagointiin (ipcc).

Kesäihminen kirjoitti:

Se on kuitenkin täysin höpöhöpö puhetta, että tulevaisuudessa Suomen ilmasto kylmenisi! Ilmastomme lämpenee tulevaisuudessa, se on vissi ja varma. Suomen ilmaston lämpenemisestä on jo monia todisteita. Lisäksi lähes kaikki ilmastotutkijat uskovat, että ilmastomme lämpenee, ja enemmistö ei voi olla väärässä.

Tekniikan Maailma -lehdestä vuoden takainen juttu ilmastonmuutoksesta. Jutussa käsitellään asiaa kiihkottomasti ja päästetään ääneen "molemmat puolet" argumentteineen, toisin kuin saat joka päivä lukea iltapuluista pelkästään lämpenemisjihadistien pelotteluita.

Kannattaa lukaista mikäli ilmastonmuutos yhtään kiinnostaa. Nämä linkit ovat skanneja ja laitan ne tähän järjestyksessä.

'Maailmanloppu vai maailman suurin huijaus?'
TM 9/2007:

s.138 http://www.aijaa.com/v.php?i=2415982.jpg

s. 139 http://www.aijaa.com/v.php?i=2416002.jpg

s. 140 http://www.aijaa.com/v.php?i=2416015.jpg

s. 141 http://www.aijaa.com/v.php?i=2416026.jpg

s. 142 http://www.aijaa.com/v.php?i=2416034.jpg

s. 143 http://www.aijaa.com/v.php?i=2416047.jpg

s. 144 http://www.aijaa.com/v.php?i=2416058.jpg

s. 145 http://www.aijaa.com/v.php?i=2416069.jpg

s. 146 http://www.aijaa.com/v.php?i=2416075.jpg

BUAHAHAHAHA kirjoitti:

Hae vähän muualtakin "faktaa" ilmastosta kuin tuolta fmi:stä joka nojautuu ipcc:n arpomisiin.

Kerro jotain.

Kuin nuo tutkijat, niin miksi ihmeessä et sitten ole jo tekemässä tutkimustyötä?

BUAHAHAHAHA kirjoitti:

Fakta on ettei sitä tiedä yksikään Homo Sapiens tällä planeetalla että mihin suuntaan ilmasto muuttuu kun ilmaston mekaniikkaa ei tunneta. Kaikki väitteet suuntaan tai toiseen ovat pelkkiä arvioita.

Vähiten löytyy uskoa politisoituun propagointiin (ipcc).

Niin, kaikki väitteet ovat arvioita, mutta se on fakta, että suurin osa arvioista puoltaa ajatusta, että ilmasto lämpenisi.

*** kirjoitti:

Eivät ne meidän esi-isät vaellelleet tänne Pohjolaan helteiden vuoksi vaan nimenomaan mukavasta viileydestä nauttimaan. Täällä ei silloin ihan jokainen vinkuintiaani olisi pärjännyt talvella, toisin kuin nyt kun fatta maksaa lämpimät asunnot ja ruoat.

Helle on velttoperseisten laiskiaisten keli!

tulivat tänne vahingossa kun eksyivät.
Eivätkä enää osanneet pois ja ryhtyivät lämpimikseen lisääntymään.
Jos ihminen oisi tarkoitettu elämään kylmässä, niin meillä kasvais turkki!
Keskustelin taannoin muuten yhden hautausmaalla työskentelevän ihmisen kanssa ja hän siinä harmitteli helmikuisia kiireitään.
Kertoi että aina tammikuussa kuolee eniten ihmisiä.
Enkä ihmettele, kas niin inhottava vuodenaika on talvi.