Global Warming Confusion

Two stories are in the news today, and together they reflect the two sides of the global warming debate.

WorldNetDaily reported yesterday on scientists rejecting the global warming mantra.

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.

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.

On the other hand, there's a disturbed scientist in Australia who is on the verge of an apoplectic fit over global warming. The Age (Australia) reported the story today.

SCIENTIST Tim Flannery has proposed a radical solution to climate change which may change the colour of the sky.

But he said it may be necessary, as the "last barrier to climate collapse".

Professor Flannery said climate change was happening so quickly that mankind might need to pump sulphur into the atmosphere to survive. Australia's best-known expert on global warming has updated his climate forecast for the world, and it's much worse than he thought just three years ago.

He has called for a range of radical emergency measures.

The gas sulphur could be inserted into the earth's stratosphere to keep out the sun's rays and slow global warming, a process called global dimming.

"It would change the colour of the sky," Professor Flannery said. "It's the last resort that we have, it's the last barrier to a climate collapse.

"We need to be ready to start doing it in perhaps five years' time if we fail to achieve what we're trying to achieve."

The 2007 Australian of the Year said the sulphur could be dispersed above the earth's surface by adding it to jet fuel.

He conceded there were risks to global dimming via sulphur: "The consequences of doing that are unknown."

Unknown??? Can you say, "sulfuric acid rain"? That's like shooting somebody to cure him of his head cold.

But then again, Flannery doesn't believe global warming is the earthly equivalent of a cold.

Professor Flannery, who spoke at a business and sustainability conference yesterday in Parliament House, Canberra, said new science showed the world was much more susceptible to greenhouse gas emissions than had been thought eight years ago.

Regardless of what happened to future emissions, there was already far too much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, he said.

Cutting emissions was not enough. Mankind now had to take greenhouse gases out of the air. "The current burden of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is in fact more than sufficient to cause catastrophic climate change," Professor Flannery said.

"Everything's going in the wrong direction at the moment; timelines are getting shorter, the amount of pollution in the atmosphere is growing. It's extremely urgent."

As well as the global dimming plan, Professor Flannery said carbon should be taken out of the air and converted into charcoal, then ploughed into farmers' fields.

Wealthy people should pay poor farmers in tropical zones to plant forests, possibly through a direct-purchase scheme like the eBay website.

And all conventional coal-fired power stations that did not have "clean coal" technology should be closed by 2030.

Capturing carbon emissions from coal-fired power stations and storing them underground was a good idea, Professor Flannery said.

That's one who is very much on the side of catastrophic global warming. Plus Al Gore, who isn't a scientist. Plus the UN, which wants to run the world. And 31,000 who say it's not catastrophic and certainly not worth destroying the economy of the world because of it.

Whose side do you want to be on?