time: 2016 02 22 1:39 utc 1456154799 reporting this problem: the problem you have encountered is with a project web site hosted by sourceforge.net. This issue should be reported to the sourceforge.net hosted project not to sourceforge.net. if this is a severe or recurring/persistent problem, please do one of the following, and provide the error text numbered 1 through 7, above:

user name

if you are a maintainer of this web content, please refer to the site documentation regarding web services for further assistance. This option may be re enabled by the project by placing a file with the name .htaccess with this line: january 27, 2012 editor's note: the following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article: a candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about global warming. Candidates should understand that the oft repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

Love Essay to Him

In september, nobel prize winning physicist ivar giaever, a supporter of president obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the american physical society aps with a letter that begins: i did not renew my membership because i cannot live with the aps policy statement: 'the evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 climategate email of climate scientist kevin trenberth: the fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.

But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of co2. The lack of warming for more than a decade indeed, the smaller than predicted warming over the 22 years since the u.n.'s intergovernmental panel on climate change ipcc began issuing projections suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional co2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to co2. Co2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more co2 that greenhouse operators often increase the co2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth.

This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when co2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional co2 in the atmosphere. Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted or worse. Chris de freitas, the editor of the journal climate research, dared to publish a peer reviewed article with the politically incorrect but factually correct conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have dr. De freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before for example, in the frightening period when trofim lysenko hijacked biology in the soviet union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the american physical society, from which dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word incontrovertible from its description of a scientific issue? there are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question cui bono? or the modern update, follow the money.

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them. Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: there is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to decarbonize the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the ipcc, aggressive greenhouse gas control policies are not justified economically.

I Need An Essay on Global Warming Text

Love Essay to Him

related video