Oregon Petition really has about 17 000 signatories, but according to a survey conducted by Scientific American, only about 200 climatologists (extrapolation) on the list agree with the statements these days: http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21

Yes, CO2 leads to faster plant growth rates, but it is also poisonous in large quantities, in addition to being a greenhouse gas. For example, if you're closed for a long enough time in an air-tight space, you don't die to the lack of oxygen, but to CO2 poisoning because CO2 replaces the oxygen in your blood. That's because the CO2 concentration goes up as you exhale it. We're basically doing the same to the environment with adding CO2 to atmosphere from outside of the natural cycle. There's only so much CO2 that the ecosystem can handle.

The Great Global Warming Swindle is propaganda, just like Al Gore's movie. GGWS explains the warming by increased solar activity, but as can be seen from the graph I posted, solar activity has stayed roughly the same for the last 25 years. That's why the graphs in GGWS only show data up to the 80s. Intellectual dishonesty again.

Greenhouse gases nor solar changes nor aerosol emissions do not explain the observed warming alone, but when all of the forcings are combined, the results make perfect sense.

Yeah, solar activity really doesn't map well to temperature...

 Not at all.

You mean like the 8,000 PPM when the dinosaurs were around? As opposed to the 380 PPM nowadays?

What I meant is that the ecosystem is not able to keep up with the increased CO2 levels by increasing CO2 draining biomass, that is, the buffers don't work forever. When the oceans and forests have used their buffering ability, the CO2 levels will start increasing a bit faster, just like in prehistoric times when the CO2 levels start rising about 800 years after the initiation of a warm period. Life of course survives in a form or another no matter how high we can raise the CO2 level, but humans couldn't handle 8000 ppm.

"According to Swedish paleogeophysicist Nils-Axel Mörner, who’s been studying and writing about sea levels for four decades, the scientists working for the IPCC have falsified data and destroyed evidence to incorrectly prove their point."

"[W]e can see that the sea level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year. Not more. 1.1 is the exact figure. And we can check that, because Holland is a subsiding area; it has been subsiding for many millions of years; and Sweden, after the last Ice Age, was uplifted. So if you balance those, there is only one solution, and it will be this figure."

"That ended in 1940, and there had been no rise until 1970; and then we can come into the debate here on what is going on, and we have to go to satellite altimetry, and I will return to that. But before doing that: There’s another way of checking it, because if the radius of the Earth increases, because sea level is rising, then immediately the Earth’s rate of rotation would slow down. That is a physical law, right? You have it in figure-skating: when they rotate very fast, the arms are close to the body; and then when they increase the radius, by putting out their arms, they stop by themselves. So you can look at the rotation and the same comes up: Yes, it might be 1.1 mm per year, but absolutely not more."

"Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. But we have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn’t use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting. And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. "

"Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend."

"Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it's not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don't say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!"

"That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don't find it!"

"..."

I saw this today and thought it was interesting in relation to this topic ...

What he says about the Earth's rotation slowing down due to rising sea levels is patently ridiculous.

Sea levels don't just rise out of nothing, they rise because ice melts.  If ice that is floating in the oceans melts, nothing happens to the water level, but if ice that is sitting on land above sea level melts and runs down to the oceans, the water level rises.  This does not slow the Earth's rotation by "increasing the radius of the Earth."  If you move a large mass of frozen water from, say, the ice covering Greenland, and distribute it into the oceans, you're not increasing the radius of the Earth -- if anything, you're redistributing mass from a higher radius (on top of land) to a lower radius (in the ocean), which would decrease the Earth's rotational inertia, and actually speed up its rotation, but the effect would be so small it would be difficult to measure.

Again, the 1980-2007 data is missing, because the author knows the fast warming in that period can't be explained with variation in solar activity. The temperature in the pic seems to be that of northern hemisphere, because worldwide temperatures stayed roughly the same from 1950 to 1970. From that point on, the greenhouse(+) and aerosol emission(-) forcings became more and more evident.

Here are the warming curves from NH, SH and combined: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

I think you should take another physics course to understand what the PHD is saying ...

Being that ice from the ocean can not raise sea levels, all of the water that raises the sea level must come from land based sources; this means that it would be comming from land based sources like the antartic. When this ice melts from the polar regions it would enter the ocean and raise the sea level around the equator thereby increasing the radius of the earth and we should be able to measure the impact of this increase in the rotation of the earth.

Essentially, his skater example is quite good ...

The polar ice represents the raised arms above the scater's head and the legs being together; as the ice melts the arms and legs move outwards and slows the skater dramatically.

Does anyone actually think that our pathetic 0.28% contribution has ANY significant effect on global temperature?? Where's the mainstream scientific analysis of other factors? Why are the scientists focusing on 0.28% of the greenhouse effect as the MAIN CAUSE of global warming? Because science follows the money, and right now, for political reasons, the money goes to the scientists who work to prove human caused global warming. That's not science, It's gold-digging.

 This site has some great info: http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor2108263