Santa

What age do you have to be to work at the north pole? The north pole in colorado springs colorado? I need to know so that if it is 14 years old then i could start next year!

Has anyone been to the North Pole in Cascade, Colorado? I have, since I live very close to it... but Im wondering, if you have, do you know how many people can ride on the Farris wheel?

How is climbing a colorado mountain like traveling towards the north pole? Please and thank you

How much shorter is Colorado's north border than its south border? Despite how it appears on the map, Colorado is not rectangular: it's east and west borders are determined by lines of longitude which converge at the north pole (they get closer to each other as they go farther north). Thus, Colorado's northern border must be shorter in length than its southern border. But I have not been able to find anything to say exactly how much shorter (and I must admit, I do not have the math skills to figure it out myself). Does anyone know about this?

What is the longitude of Colorado Springs as measured from Greenwich? if we measure counter-clockwise, looking down on the north pole, what would the longitude of Colorado Springs be? If I look it up online, they say about 155 degrees west, but is that the same as measuring the longitude of Colorado Springs as referenced to Greenwich? I know that Hawaii is measured as being 200 degrees, but I don't know how they got those numbers. sorry, typo. 105 degrees west.

Was the North 'Pole Ice-Free' in 2008? Didn't some goober at NSIDC by the name of Mark Serreze.. a Senior Research Scientist, Associate Research Professor, CIRES Fellow, PhD, University of Colorado at Boulder, make some prediction that the North Pole would be ice-free in 2008? As I recall, the mainstream media was splashing the story all over the place earlier last year, but I haven't heard a peep since. What's the scoop?

No North Pole by This SUMMER!? Arctic sea ice could break apart completely at the North Pole this year, allowing ships to sail over the normally frozen top of the world. ADVERTISEMENT The potential landmark thaw - the first time in human history the pole would be ice-free - is a stark sign of global warming, according to an article Friday on the web site of the The Independent, a London newspaper. "Symbolically it is hugely important," said Mark Serreze of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado. "There is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, not open water." Last year, the fabled Northwest Passage opened as Arctic ice retreated more than ever before. There is no land at the North Pole, but as long as anyone has looked, it has remained a giant block of ice year-round. Scientists have been watching Arctic sea ice melt more and more each year. But each summer in recent years, the amount of ice has gotten thinner and thinner. Each winter's freeze, therefore, results in a thinner pack that, this summer, could melt altogether. "The issue is that, for the first time that I am aware of, the North Pole is covered with extensive first-year ice," Serreze is quoted by The Independent. "I'd say it's even-odds whether the North Pole melts out." Russia and other countries, meanwhile, have been arguing over who has rights to the region's resources, including potential oil reserves. Several studies in recent years have predicted that the North Pole could be ice-free within a few decades. Alarm has ratcheted up every summer as the ice gets thinner and thinner. In a study released June 10, scientist said the rapid meltoff in the Arctic could threaten permafrost in continental soil elsewhere above the Arctic circle in a warm version of the snowball effect. Last summer saw a record melt of Arctic sea ice, which shrank to more than 30 percent below its average. Around the peak of the melt, in September, air temperatures over land in the western Arctic from August to October were more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above the 1978-2006 average. "The rapid loss of sea ice can trigger widespread changes that would be felt across the region," said Andrew Slater, also of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. What is your opinion!?!

What would be a Good City to live in: Fairbanks, AK; Denver, Colorado; Seattle, Washington; or Minneapolis? I was born in Fairbanks, Alaska and grew up in North Pole, Alaska. I recently moved to Eminence, Missouri and can't wait to leave when I graduate. So, which place is better than North Pole or Fairbanks. I was in Heaven there!

If gas goes to $5, would you support mining oil from sand and shale? And accept the responsibility for the big ditch from Colorado to the North Pole. If we do that, we would burn and pollute fossil fuels for at least 100 years, stifling our progress on solar, wind, and other high tech energies and warming the earth until all the water is melted. Do we only do things because they are cheap? Don't we do what is right? LOL. Republicans say 500 years but its only 100, maybe 200 years.

On a clear night, the best place to see the aurora would be? At the magnetic north pole Northern Maine Northern Washington Colorado or Alaska I'm stuck between Mag. N Pole and Alaska...

Please help?!? Hey! I'm doing some Social Studies work, and I was wondering if you guy scould answer the following questions! Thanks in advance for any help! Here are the questions: 1. Which two large countries are located in both Asia and Europe? 2. Through what South American countries does the tropic of capricorn pass? 3.What ocean contains the North Pole? 4. Which country is further north: Burkina Faso or Venezuela? Explain your answer. 5. How are the Amazon, Mississippi, Nile, and Volga Rivers alike? 6. What European capital is locared at approximately 52 degrees north latitude and 21 degrees eat longintude? 7. What large city is located approximately 23 degrees south latitude and 46 degrees west longitude? 8. How many continents have a capital "A" in their name? 9. How are Austria, Colorado, Paraguay, and Zambia similar? 10. Which city is further north: Montreal, Quebec, or Vancouver?

Do people in Northern Minnesota or the UP of Michigan have air conditioning? 24 degrees in July in Minnesota? I was wondering if the people of Northern Minnesota, the U.P. of Michigan, or places in the far North East like Caribou have air conditioning. How often do you have to put your heat on in the summer? Also, I read that Embaress Minnesota and Tower Minnesota have gotten as cold as 24 degrees in July. This seems almost impossible. Can residents of Embaress and Tower even grow warm crops like Tomatoes? I could understand it going down to 24 degrees in the coldest of cold cities in the Rocky Mountains, like Gunnison Colorado, but for a city that is NOT over 1,500 feet in elevation near Lake Superior to go to 24 degrees in July - which is the warmest month of the year is almost impossible to believe. The -60 reading is also hard to believe, especially since International Falls has gone no lower than -46 below zero. Northern Minnesota is not that far north! It is only halfway between the equator and the north pole. Places in Alaska, such as Fairbanks - which is MUCH farthern north than Northern Minnesota, the UP, or Maine has never been below freezing in July! What gives? Why does it seem to take so much to get warm subtropical airmasses to 45 degree latitude in the U.S.?

Can you answer 6th grade social studies questions? Ok I am a teacher so what I want to know is Who here can answer these 6th grade questions? This includes answering in full sentences ok! Have fun and Good luck! 1. What ocean touches the coasts of Africa, Asia, Australia and Antarctica? 2. Find a large bay in Canada that is north of the Great Lakes. What is its name? 3. Is Iceland closer to the North Pole than New Zealand is to the South Pole? Explain your answer. 4. What sea is at the mouth of the Nile River in Africa? Wednesday 5. Which is farther east, the east coast of the United States or the east coast of South America? 6. What sea is located at the mouth of the Dneiper River in Ukraine? Thursday 7. What mountain range runs through western Canada, but not along the coast? 8. What ocean is at the mouth of the Amazon River? 9. What strait, controlled by the United Kingdom, is close to the place where the Mediterranean Sea meets the Atlantic Ocean? 10. Look at a physical map of the United States. Which state contains more low land, Texas and Colorado? 11. What country is west of Alaska? 12. What is the name given to given to small rivers that flow into larger rivers? 13. What large bay separates Greeland from Baffin Island? 14. If you traveled in a straight line from San Diego, California to Mexico City, Mexico, you would pass through mountains. Name them. 15. Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California all have a border with with country? 16. Look at a physical map of the United States. Which state has higher elevations, Florida or Tennessee? I wish I could put to both for best answer but as you know I can't so I think I'm not going to choise best answer so your grades are 100% congradulations!!! you both got an A+ in Social Studies

Why did the Arctic sea ice fare so well in 2008 when CO2 levels in the atmosphere are supposedly so high? September 24, 2008 Arctic sea ice begins autumn freeze-up Arctic sea ice extent, after reaching its seasonal minimum last week, has begun its annual cyclical increase in response to the setting sun. A cooler melt season, retention of first-year ice, and dispersive ice motion set the 2008 melt season apart from 2007. High retention of first-year ice Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the 2008 melt season was the higher-than-average retention of first-year sea ice (see earlier entries, including April 7). Relatively thin first-year ice is more prone to melting out completely than older, thicker ice. However, more of this year’s first-year ice survived the melt season than is typical. Sea ice age maps from Sheldon Drobot, our colleague at the University of Colorado at Boulder, show that much more first-year ice survived in 2008 than in 2007. This is one of the reasons that 2008 did not break last year's record-low minimum. One cause of the high first-year ice survival rate was that this summer was cooler than in 2007. Lower temperatures slowed the melt rate in the early part of the season. While conditions in August favored rapid ice loss, they were not enough to make up for this early-season "cushion." Furthermore, much of this year's first-year ice was located at higher latitudes than in 2007, covering even the geographic North Pole. Regions that are far north have lower melt rates because they receive less solar energy than more southerly regions. http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ Some of you Warmers have your blinders on. Did you even read the article? The thrust of the article is that the Arctic sea ice made a recovery since 2007. I know that some of you may have cringed to see that, but the fact of the matter is that the Arctic sea ice has increased..... SHEESH! Stop being in denial.... Please!

Exxxtreeammmly easy questions? 1. What is the capital of Maine? 2. On which continent is the Gobi Desert found? 3. Is the North Pole on land or water? 4. Are you closer to the equator in the northern or southern part of Argentina? 5. In which state is the intersection of 90 degrees W and 30 degrees N found? 6. The following are the three countries with the largest land areas in the world: (1) Russia (2) Canada (3) China. To what hemispheres do they belong? 7. Which province in Canada is farthest west? 8. Which state would be considered a southern state: Ohio, Colorado, Alabama, or Pennsylvania?

Leading Climate Researchers Predict "Mini-Ice Age"? Has anyone alerted Al Gore? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...arts-here.html "The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists. Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013. According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this."

Now some experts claim we are heading for an mini ice age,is this the end of global warming? The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists. Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013. According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

Homemade Generator using Earth's Magnetism? A Boulder farmer, frustrated by her monthly electricity bill, decides to power her extralarge- screen television set by using a home-built generator. She knows that the Earth acts like a huge magnet and wants to make use of this magnetic field to generate an electromotive force (voltage difference) for this TV. The generator is made up of two large conductors coming out of the house, connected to a large sliding (conducting) rail pulled by her two horses, as shown below. In Boulder the angle of the Earth’s magnetic field, which is pointing into the ground, with the horizontal (ground) is 66o and the magnitude of the field is 53 μT (micro T). The TV acts effectively like a 9.8 Ω resistor in the circuit, and the friction between the moving parts is negligible. (a) Redraw the set-up and show the direction of the Earth’s magnetic field inside the loop, including the angle given above. (Assume that the North pole of a compass, which is held parallel to the ground points to the right). (b) The horses can pull the sliding rail at 8 miles per hour. How large is the voltage generated across the leads to the TV? How much current flows in the circuit? Indicate the current direction on the diagram. N Physics 2020, Fall 2010 page 2 of 2 University of Colorado at Boulder, Department of Physics (c) What is the magnetic force on the sliding rail? Indicate the direction on the diagram. (d) How much power is expended by the horses? How much electrical power does the TV use? So I know that the magnetic field of the earth points down and south which is simple enough. The EMF is just B*A/time, using the velocity of the horses and the length of the circuit gives me a time of 4.2 seconds, so I can solve for EMF, being 0.0019 Volts. And I have figured the current using I=V/R which is 1.94e-4 amp. Is this all correct or have I missed something important? These numbers seem really small for what the farmer is trying to do. I also need to figure out the magnetic force, which is F=ILB, but I don't know what to use for L, is it the width of the circuit or just the length? And how do I determine which way the current is moving if the magnetic force is bisecting the circuit? Here is the link to the actual problem: http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys2020/phys2020_fa10/HW/WrittenHW5_A%20Homemade%20Generator.pdf Do you mean the right hand rule? And if so, the field is pointing more or less to the left and down, so I think the current is moving counterclockwise. Does that make sense?

Should we forget about global warming? Is global cooling happening right now? The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists. Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013. According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0cPVAcxTn

As we enter an ice age will the global warmers continue to say it's getting hotter? The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists. Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013. According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

Bizarre animal laws? Cats in International Falls, Minnesota, are not allowed to chase dogs up telephone poles. If your dog gets your neighbor's dog pregnant in Danbury, Connecticut, you are responsible and must pay for the abortion if the neighbor chooses to have it done. No dog may be tied to a shade tree in Birmingham, Alabama. An ordinance in Belvedere, California, states "No dog shall be in a public place without its master on a leash." Another misworded ordinance is this one from Arvada, Colorado: "If a stray pet is not claimed within 24 hours, the owner will be destroyed." Fights between cats and dogs are prohibited by statute in Barber, North Carolina. In Sterling, Colorado, it is unlawful to allow a pet cat to run loose without a taillight. In Ventura County, California, cats and dogs are not allowed to have sex without a permit. Cats living in Cresskill, New Jersey, must wear three bells to warn birds of their whereabouts. A Fountain Inn, South Carolina, law once required horses to wear pants at all times. But carriage horses in Charleston, South Carolina, were required to wear diapers. In Calgary, Canada, a by-law requires businesses within the city to provide rails for tying up horses. In Winona, MS, it is illegal to drive a car on Main Street because it frightens horses. In Wilbur, Washington, it is against the law for a person to "ride an ugly horse" - the fine is $300! If you live in California, you cannot keep your chickens, turkeys, goats, cows, and other farm animals in an apartment. In Cumberland, Maryland, you cannot keep your chickens with you in your hotel room. In Minnesota, it's illegal to tease skunks. In Atlanta, it's against the law to tie a giraffe to a telephone pole or a street lamp. Riding a camel on a highway in Nevada is against the law. Over in Galveston, Texas, it is against the law for camels to wander the streets unattended. In Arizona, it is illegal to shoot or hunt camels. It's illegal to take a deer swimming in water above its knees in North Carolina apologies folks, it wasnt meant for this cat

Isn't this sad??? Another AVOIDABLE death!!!? News E-Edition Top Stories obituaries opinion Community calendar lifestyles police and courts government Elections religion sports education agriculture classified ads Real Estate links Search Archives RSS Feed Information Local Links Alamosa Tourism Information Adams State College Alamosa Chamber of Commerce Four-vehicle accident claims young teacher BY ERIC MULLENS Car caught between two potato trucks ALAMOSA — A young teacher in the gifted and talented program at Sangre de Cristo elementary school died when her car was crushed between two potato trucks Tuesday night on Alamosa County Lane 5. Kelly Bergen, 25, of Monte Vista, Colo. was killed when her Ford Focus was hit from behind by a potato truck driven by Oscar Martinez-Cruz, 27, of Monte Vista and then pushed into another potato truck being towed by a tractor. Martinez-Cruz was arrested and charged with careless driving causing death, driving a motor vehicle without a valid operator’s license and failure to present evidence of insurance. The operator of the second potato truck, Miguel Ramirez, 54, of Greeley, Colo. and the driver of the tractor, Bernardo Garcia, 55, of Hereford, Texas have not been charged in the accident. Martinez-Cruz is currently being held at the Alamosa County Detention Center on charges related to the accident. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent-in-Charge Ed Tolbert of the Alamosa ICE office, confirmed Wednesday that Martinez-Cruz is an undocumented Mexican national working in the U.S. illegally and the agency has placed a detainer hold on him. Colorado State Patrol Trooper Travis S. DePriest investigated the accident that happened around 7 p.m. Tuesday on County Lane 5 North, about one-tenth of a mile east of Alamosa County Road 102 South. According to the trooper’s report, all four vehicles were westbound on County Lane 5 North with Bergen’s Ford behind Ramirez’s potato truck that was being towed by the tractor driven by Garcia. As Bergen’s car approached the truck and tractor it was hit from behind by the truck driven by Martinez-Cruz and pushed 106 feet, rotating clockwise in front of Martinez-Cruz’s truck. Both the car and truck then slammed into the rear of the truck being towed and pushing it into the rear of the tractor. The tractor left the right side of the roadway and struck a power pole and came to rest in a field facing northwest. Bergen’s car came to rest in the westbound lane of County Lane 5 North, facing north and still attached to the front of potato truck driven by Martinez-Cruz.

Global Warming - The other side of the argument.? Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes Scientists in this section conclude that natural causes are likely more to blame than human activities for the observed rising temperatures. •Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." (Russian News & Information Agency, Jan. 15, 2007 [9]) (See also [10], [11], [12]) •Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air." (Capitalism Magazine, August 22, 2002)[13] Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air’s increased greenhouse gas content." (Marshall Institute, March 25, 2003) [14] •David Bellamy, environmental campaigner, broadcaster and botanist: "Global warming is a largely natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed."[15] •Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Meterorology: "It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air." [16]. •Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown." (Telegraph, April 9, 2006 [17]) •George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible." (Environmental Geology, vol. 50 no. 6, August 2006 [18]) •Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle." (The Hill Times, March 22, 2004 [19]) •William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[20]) "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." [21]) "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[22]) •Yuri Izrael, vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming."[23] •Zbigniew Jaworowski, chair of the Scientific Council at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw: "The atmospheric temperature variations do not follow the changes in the concentrations of CO2 ... climate change fluctuations comes ... from cosmic radiation." (21st Century Science & Technology, Winter 2003-2004, p. 52-65 [24]) •David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming." (May 15, 2006 [25]) •Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned." (M. Leroux, Global Warming - Myth or Reality?, 2005, p. 120 [26]) •Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[27] •Tim Patterson [28], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?" [29] •Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it". [[30]] •Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities." (Environment News, 2001 [31]) •Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries. [32] •Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect." (Christian Science Monitor, April 22, 2005) [33] "The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it.", NCPA Study No. 279, Sep. 2005 [34]. “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.” (CBC's Denial machine @ 19:23 - Google Video Link) •Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed." (Harvard University Gazette, 24 April 2003 [35]) •Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..." (Global Warming as Myth [36]) •Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover." [37] •Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge." (In J. Veizer, "Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle", Geoscience Canada, March, 2005. [38], [39]) [edit] Believe cause of global warming is unknown Scientists in this section conclude it is too early to ascribe any principal cause to the observed rising temperatures, man-made or natural. •Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: "Thus, there is a possibility that only a fraction of the present warming trend may be attributed to the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities. This conclusion is contrary to the IPCC (2007) Report, which states that “most” of the present warming (+0.7°C/100 years) is due to the greenhouse effect."[40] •Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): "The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content." (Translation from the original French version in L'Express, May 10, 2006 [41]) •August H. "Augie" Auer Jr., retired New Zealand MetService Meteorologist, past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming: "So if you multiply the total contribution 3.6 by the man-made portion of it, 3.2, you find out that the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to the the global greenhouse effect is 0.117 percent, roughly 0.12 percent, that's like 12c in $100." "'It's miniscule ... it's nothing,'". [42] •Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and a professor of geography at Arizona State University: "[I]t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. ... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models." (George C. Marshall Institute, Policy Outlook, September 2003[43]) •Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done." (The New Zealand Herald, May 9, 2006 [44]) •David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria." (Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, December 6, 2006 [45]) •Richard Lindzen, Alfred Sloane Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachussetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future." [46] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas — albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed." (San Francisco Examiner, July 12, 2006 [47] and in Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2006, Page A14) •Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind." (George C. Marshall Institute Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy, April 17, 2006 [48]) Still convinced that this new religon is right?