New Detailed Global Climate Change Projections from NASA

Detailed Global Climate Change Projections

The new NASA global data set combines historical measurements with data from climate simulations using the best available computer models to provide forecasts of how global temperature (shown here) and precipitation might change up to 2100 under different greenhouse gas emissions scenarios.

A new dataset from the NASA Earth Exchange shows how temperature and rainfall patterns worldwide may change through the year 2100 because of growing concentrations of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere.

The dataset, which is available to the public, shows projected changes worldwide on a regional level in response to different scenarios of increasing carbon dioxide simulated by 21 climate models. The high-resolution data, which can be viewed on a daily timescale at the scale of individual cities and towns, will help scientists and planners conduct climate risk assessments to better understand local and global effects of hazards, such as severe drought, floods, heat waves and losses in agriculture productivity.

“NASA is in the business of taking what we’ve learned about our planet from space and creating new products that help us all safeguard our future,” said Ellen Stofan, NASA chief scientist. “With this new global dataset, people around the world have a valuable new tool to use in planning how to cope with a warming planet.”

The new dataset is the latest product from the NASA Earth Exchange (NEX), a big-data research platform within the NASA Advanced Supercomputing Center at the agency’s Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California. In 2013, NEX released similar climate projection data for the continental United States that is being used to quantify climate risks to the nation’s agriculture, forests, rivers and cities.

“This is a fundamental dataset for climate research and assessment with a wide range of applications,” said Ramakrishna Nemani, NEX project scientist at Ames. “NASA continues to produce valuable community-based data products on the NEX platform to promote scientific collaboration, knowledge sharing, and research and development.”

This NASA dataset integrates actual measurements from around the world with data from climate simulations created by the international Fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. These climate simulations used the best physical models of the climate system available to provide forecasts of what the global climate might look like under two different greenhouse gas emissions scenarios: a “business as usual” scenario based on current trends and an “extreme case” with a significant increase in emissions.

The NASA climate projections provide a detailed view of future temperature and precipitation patterns around the world at a 15.5 mile (25 kilometer) resolution, covering the time period from 1950 to 2100. The 11-terabyte dataset provides daily estimates of maximum and minimum temperatures and precipitation over the entire globe.

NEX is a collaboration and analytical platform that combines state-of-the-art supercomputing, Earth system modeling, workflow management and NASA remote-sensing data. Through NEX, users can explore and analyze large Earth science data sets, run and share modeling algorithms and workflows, collaborate on new or existing projects and exchange workflows and results within and among other science communities.

NEX data and analysis tools are available to the public through the OpenNEX project on Amazon Web Services. OpenNEX is a partnership between NASA and Amazon, Inc., to enhance public access to climate data, and support planning to increase climate resilience in the U.S. and internationally. OpenNEX is an extension of the NASA Earth Exchange in a public cloud-computing environment.

NASA uses the vantage point of space to increase our understanding of our home planet, improve lives, and safeguard our future. NASA develops new ways to observe and study Earth’s interconnected natural systems with long-term data records. The agency freely shares this unique knowledge and works with institutions around the world to gain new insights into how our planet is changing.

Source: Steve Cole, NASA

Image: NASA

17 Comments on "New Detailed Global Climate Change Projections from NASA"

  1. Miguel Garcia | June 9, 2015 at 10:41 am | Reply

    How does NASA’s Solar Cycle 25 (SC25) prediction factor into this? SC25 predicts that a “Mini-Ice” may be in store for us similar to the one that occurred in the 1650 or so, in which the river Thames froze over and lasted some 70 years.

    • Steven Cohen | June 9, 2015 at 12:58 pm | Reply

      They did not mention it because it would have no meaningful effect. GHG emissions are the main driver of climate change not solar cycles.

      • Sir Fred Hoyle vs. Steve (hmmmmm… wonder if Steve even knows who Hoyle is!)

        Sir Fred Hoyle – who should need no introduction to anyone past a junior high education – said about the climate modeling that keeps failing: “Understanding the Earth’s greenhouse effect does not require complex computer models in order to calculate useful numbers for debating the issue… To raise a delicate point, it is not very sensible to make approximations… and then perform a highly complicated computer calculation, while claiming arithmetical accuracy of the computer as the standard for the whole investigation.”

  2. Ancient Mariner | June 9, 2015 at 10:52 am | Reply

    Considering that the world has warmed less than a degree and nothing at all since before this century, how do they figure?

  3. “New Detailed Global Climate Change Projections from NASA”

    (Headline correction)

    “New Imaginary Global Climate Change Projections from NASA”

    • Steven Cohen | June 9, 2015 at 1:01 pm | Reply

      You fools even think a reputable agency like NASA is a “fraud”. We did put men on the moon, fool.

      • GeneralLee_Write | June 9, 2015 at 3:38 pm | Reply

        The moon? Yeah, awesome, but that was then. Now they need something else to do. As long as they perpetuate the AGW myth, the generous funding will pour in at the expense of the revenue-generating sector.

      • So were they lying then or are they lying now?

      • Steve, you are the fool. Totally different set of people at NASA who are in climate and Aerospace. Crunching temp data is not rocket science but for some reason you think so.

  4. Sooooooooooo is this the real data or the estimated data or the first or second round of fake data?
    How are we to know

    • Steven Cohen | June 9, 2015 at 1:04 pm | Reply

      Any data putout by a government agency such as the unemployment numbers that show a strengthening economy is “faked” to you fools. Yes we did put men on the moon, it was not faked, and I did live through it.

  5. GeneralLee_Write | June 9, 2015 at 12:15 pm | Reply

    There goes NASA again, using “scorched orange” to manipulate the opinions of the casual viewers while making more predictions using words like (and yes – all of these are used in the article): projected, simulated, forecast, might, and climate risk assessments.

    All of their projections are catastrophic… but nothing catastrophic is happening. Our tax dollars hard at work… to create policies that grab more of our tax dollars. Keep voting for this, fellow citizens. Keep voting for this, no question asked.

  6. Lance Outerbridge | June 9, 2015 at 12:56 pm | Reply

    So all 21 climate models predict the most populous areas on Earth will turn to dark red molten lava within the next 85 years or is the color scheme slightly exaggerated? What would be the final temperature scale ? or is that information more than my layman’s mind can cope with?

  7. Instead of admitting that their hypotheses and computer generated climate models of human influenced global warming upon which the Catastrophic Global Warming Lunatics rely is fatally flawed, they simply ignore the data and conclusions and continue to perpetuate the myth.

    When actual data doesn’t concur with the data of the desired computer generated climate models of the Catastrophic Global Warming Lunatics, they simply adjust or “HOMOGINIZE” the data, and when the adjusted or “HOMOGINIZED” data still doesn’t concur with data of their desired computer generated climate models, the Catastrophic Global Warming Lunatics simply discard that data and refer to the “HOMOGINIZED” data of another computer generated climate model in what they refer to as a “REANALYSIS” in order to eventually produce the specific desired outcome required to support their otherwise unsupportable claims that the temperature of the planet is increasing.

    “Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data…That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community.” Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT

    “The catastrophe that the catastrophic global warming advocate’s project may indeed be realized, but only if the American People are stupid enough to implement their draconian measures of “carbon control” based on the fraudulent theory that they espouse”! Dr. Martin Hertzberg former head of laboratory at the US Bureau of Mines

    • NASA, NOAA? Here’s a nice synopsis of what we’re witnessing from the cAGW ideologues from the article, Global Warming: The Theory that Predicts Nothing and Explains Everything

      “…explanations of data after the fact are a lot easier. As they say, hindsight is 20/20. It’s a lot easier to tweak your theory to make it a better fit to the data, or in this case, to tweak the way the data is measured and analyzed in order to make it better fit your theory. And then you proclaim how amazing it is that your theory “explains” the data.

      The whole political cause of global warming is based on the theory’s claim to make predictions before the fact.

      If this difference between prediction and explanation seems merely technical, remember that the whole political cause of global warming is based on the theory’s claim to make predictions before the fact—way before the fact, projecting temperatures for the next century. We’re supposed to base the whole organization of our civilization, at a cost of many trillions of dollars, on those ultra-long-term predictions. So exulting that they can readjust the data for the last few years to jibe with their theory after the fact is not exactly the reassurance we need.

      Anyone with the slightest familiarity with science ought to be immediately skeptical of this new claim, so naturally mainstream media “science reporters” repeat it with complete credulity and even pre-emptively inoculate us against the sin of doubt…

      Harvard science historian Naomi Oreskes recently co-authored a paper depicting research on the “hiatus” as a case study in how scientists had allowed a “seepage” of climate skeptic argumentation to affect the formal scientific literature. Of the new NOAA study, she said in an e-mail: “I hope the scientific community will do a bit of soul searching about how they got pulled into this framework, which was clearly a contrarian construction from the start.”

      Remember that everybody’s data was showing a plateau in global temperatures, and many of the studies focused on this were attempting to uphold the global warming theory in the face of that evidence. Yet now some of the theory’s own supporters are going to be thrown under the bus for showing too much faith in the data and too little faith in the cause. They will get the message stated bluntly by Oreskes: science must never be contaminated by skepticism.

      That gives us a pretty good idea of what is going on here. Because any field where people say this sort of thing is by that very fact not a field of science any longer.”

      http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/08/global-warming-the-theory-that-predicts-nothing-and-explains-everything/

  8. Nothing to see here folks, this is a conspiracy. It’ll go down as the greatest conspiracy of all time. It knows no borders(almost every nation on the planet), religion(the Pope), or allies/enemies(UN/OBL). They’re all in on it (or were) together and manipulated science for purpose to tax and control the world. Talk about alarmists!

  9. For those of you with intellectual honesty (BIG GREEN MONEY scamsters can leave now,thanks!)

    Of course, Steve, that is a not true, and you know it, as Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ. said, “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.”

    Or a few more that most BIG GREEN MONEY types don’t have the intelleletual honesty to address:

    “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

    “Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data…That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community.” Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT

    Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

    “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

    “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

    “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

    “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

    “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. (Note: there really IS a Flat Earth Society, at http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/, whose president Danieel Shenton, thinks “the evidence suggests fossil fuel usage is contributing to global warming.” (See http://www.tinyurl.com/ozn2wfe. So much for Obama’s comment that “We don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society.”

    “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

    “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

    “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

    “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

    “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

    “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

    “Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation.”Prof Christopher de Freitas, of the University of Auckland, NZ said there was no evidence to suggest carbon dioxide was the major driver of climate change (see http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8039) (In 2003, Dr. de Freitas, who edits the journal Climate Research, had published a peer-reviewed article saying the recent warming is not unusual, relative to previous historical climate changes in the past 1,000 years. As you might suspect, Dr. de Freitas had to withstand multiple demands he be fired from his editorial job, as well as his university position.

    “We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” — UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.

    “The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the [UN] IPCC.” — Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.

    “The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.” — South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics

    “Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.” — Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

    “I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” John Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,” Theon is former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA

    “Over the years, the IPCC has changed from a scientific institution that tries to be policy relevant to a political institution that pretends to be scientific. I regret that. There are already more than enough climate activists, while there are too few solid and neutral bodies that make down-to-earth and well-founded statements about climate change and climate policy.” Economist Richard Tol, in a prepared statement for the Dutch parliament examining climate-related controversies http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/04/seasoned-veterans-view-of-ipcc.html, or http://www.Climategate.nl

    Sir Fred Hoyle – who should need no introduction to anyone past a junior high education – said about the climate modeling that keeps failing: “Understanding the Earth’s greenhouse effect does not require complex computer models in order to calculate useful numbers for debating the issue… To raise a delicate point, it is not very sensible to make approximations… and then perform a highly complicated computer calculation, while claiming arithmetical accuracy of the computer as the standard for the whole investigation.”

    David Legates of the University of Delaware College of Earth, Ocean, & Environment, who is skeptical of climate change predictions of catastrophe, realized years ago that his independent position means that he should not accept corporate money for research or speaking fees. “There’s a lot more money to be made by saying the world is coming to an end than to say that this is a bunch of hooey.”

    Professor Emeritus Friedrich Karl Ewert a geologist from Paderborn University noted the “evaluation of long-term temperature readings . . . disprove that we have man-made global warming,” and presented the results of his analysis at a CFACT meeting in 2011 that of over 1,100 temperature curves from around the world, concluding, “the final result is that in 74% of all stations of the world we had no warming.” While the UN has often been told there will be terrible consequences if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere remains at or increases from the current 390 parts per million (ppm), Dr. Ewert pointed out that “in the geological past, we had the greatest glaciation of the earth (the glacier went down to 35 degrees north) when we have carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere of 1400 [ppm]. That means it was several times higher than today.” In other words, the historical evidence proves CO2 does not control earth’s climate. Dr. Ewert summarizes “It is necessary to conclude that the particular effect of manmade carbon dioxide production is not recognizable, in other words, does not exist.”

    “I am a skeptic on climate change. I know the climate is changing, and it always has been. I’ve studied this intensively over many years. I started what I call the Carbon Project here in British Columbia back in 1989 in order to bring everybody together to discuss this subject and figure out the facts behind it. Since then, I have watched as hysteria has grown, as if the whole world is going to come to an end and civilization is going to die because of humans causing this climate change. I don’t buy that, and I certainly know we don’t have any proof of it. I’m not denying that we might be playing some role, but the natural factors that have always caused climate change have not suddenly disappeared. I’m very skeptical of the alarmist nature of climate campaigning.” – Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, http://www.theenergyreport.com/pub/na/11079

    “…hard data from ice cores, dripstones, tree rings and ocean or lake sediment cores reveal significant temperature changes of more than 1°C, with warm and cold phases alternating in a 1,000-year cycle. These include the Minoan Warm Period 3,000 years ago and the Roman Warm Period 2,000 years ago. During the Medieval Warm Phase around 1,000 years ago, Greenland was colonised and grapes for wine grew in England. The Little Ice Age lasted from the 15th to the 19th century. All these fluctuations occurred before man-made CO2. Based on climate reconstructions from North Atlantic deep-sea sediment cores, Professor Gerard Bond discovered that the millennial-scale climate cycles ran largely parallel to solar cycles, including the Eddy Cycle which is – guess what – 1,000 years long. So it is really the Sun that shaped the temperature roller-coaster of the past 10,000 years… Furthermore, what is little known is that CO2 also requires a strong amplifier if it were to aggressively shape future climate as envisaged by the IPCC. CO2 alone, without so-called feedbacks, would only generate a moderate warming of 1.1°C per CO2 doubling” – Fritz Vahrenholt, one of Germany’s earliest green energy investors and global warming supporters. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9338939/Global-warming-second-thoughts-of-an-environmentalist.html

    “On May 1, 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS [to] revise its global warming position and more than 250 scientists urged a change in the group’s climate statement in 2010. The physicists wrote to APS governing board: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th – 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.”

    A former high-ranking Obama administration official, Dr. Steven Koonin, who served as Obama’s undersecretary for science in the Energy Department, and is the director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University says climate science and the implications of global warming are not “settled,” and has insisted such claims are “misguided” and stifle debate on the matter. Koonin also stated that group think among experts has been inhibiting “the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.” Story at http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/climate-change-science/2014/09/21/id/595969/#ixzz3E0DrtCmj

    Dr. Caleb Rossiter, Adjunct professor, Department of Mathematics and Statistics and the School of International Service, American University, is a liberal Democrat, but accepts that science – as opposed to Al Gore’s conception – is science — no matter what your political persuasion. Says Rossiter about AGW: “My blood simply boils too hot when I read the blather, daily, about climate catastrophe” and “Obama has long been delusional on this issue” and “Anyone who believes we are in a climate catastrophe I think is deluding themselves.” Of course, for having the temerity to present his findings about the climate, Professor Rossiter was booted out of a 23 year association with the Institute for Policy Studies. This is the kind of retaliation academics who speak honestly about the climate have come to expect. More details on this at http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/23/politically-left-scientist-dissents-calls-president-obama-delusional-on-global-warming/

    “During the past 17 years global temperatures have not been rising, temperatures have stabilized. There has been no warming since 1997. The power of solar irradiance has decreased consistently since 1990 and is still rapidly declining. Since 1990, the Sun has not been warming the Earth as in the past,” -Habibullo Abdussamatov, astrophysicist and head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory. According to Abdussamatov, our planet may enter what he calls “a mini-ice age” at the beginning of next year. “The ‘mini-ice age’ is associated with a change in the power of solar output and has a quasi-period of some 200 years. Roughly speaking, two centuries, plus-minus 70 years,” as reported by RIA Novosti.
    At one Congressional hearing, distinguished climatologist and professor Judith Curry testified that recent data “calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change.”
    “This is not about the weather. It’s not about climate. It’s not about science. Those things are being used to further another agenda.” – Joe Bastardi, Accuweather meteorology, then WeatherBell Chief Forecaster. Bastardi also noted “And as someone who has loved (weather) all his life, it’s really disheartening to see this going on in my country.” And about the NYC March of Sept. 2014, that attracted a third of a million people, “The mask came off. It’s about destroying capitalism, destroying freedom as we know it,” said Bastardi, who earlier this week suggested climate science was “prostituted” by global warming activists. (see http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/weather-chief-obama-prostituting-climate-science/#mG4jYGTcOugUAlz4.99
    Heck, even some of the uber warmers are getting a clue! “Pauses as long as 15 years are rare in the simulations,” wrote Science magazine scribe Richard Kerr. “Researchers … agree that no sort of natural variability can hold off greenhouse warming much longer.” That was six years ago. Ok… maybe he still doesn’t have a clue.
    Even Mr. Warmer himself, Kevin Trenberth, wrote back in 2009 “[W]here the heck is global warming? 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.”

    Need more? Here are a thousand other scientists in a 321 page PDF who also disagree with faux global warming: http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf, and few more here, for whom I do not have quotes:
    And here are websites you can go to that attempt to look at the C02 issue from a balanced perspective: C3 Headlines, Center for Energy and Environment, Competitive Enterprise Inst., Centre for Global Food Issues, Hudson Inst., Center on Climate and Environmental Policy, Heartland Inst.; Climate Change Reconsidered; Climate Depot; Climate in Review; Climate Policy, Heritage Fdn; Climate Scientists’ Register; Climate Wiki, C02 Science (Craig Idso); Cooler Heads Coalition; Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation; Global Science Report; Global Warming, Cato Inst.; GlobalClimateScam.com; GlobalWarming.org; ICECAP by Joseph D’Aleo; International Climate Science Coalition; International Conferences on Climate Change, Heartland Inst.; JoNova (JoNova); Junk Science (Steve Milloy), Master Resource, Power for USA; Real Science (Steve Goddard); Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP); Science and Public Policy Inst., The Climate Bet; What’s Up With That (Anthony Watts); World Climate Report (Dr. Patrick Michaels).

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*