To mark World Earth Day, an exerpt from Climate of Fear, by Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT;
To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let’s start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man’s responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn’t just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
[…]
In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.
And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an “Iris Effect,” wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as “discredited.” Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming–not whether it would actually happen.
Kate: Do you ever surf over to CSICOP?
They’re the people who publish “The Skeptical Inquirer”. Though mainly concerned with claims of paranormal activity, they do have scientists who write on the global warming phenomenon, or lack of it. It seems that for every proponent, there is an equally qualified opponent. CSICOP basically takes the position, if you make an extraordinary claim, it’s up to you to prove it.
Global warming? Well, there are lots of theories. Governments, of course, love the pro-warming side, means they can invent new taxes to fund their pet projects. Bye for now, I’m going out on the back deck for a cold beer in the lovely 20 degree weather here in Kelowna.
Michael Crichton said it best. You can not have “consensus” in science. Science is an all or nothing proposition. If you can’t prove a thing in the laboratory, you certainly can’t prove it by saying that a “concensus of scientists” say it’s true. The global climate debate, which used to be the global cooling debate, which turned into the global warming debate, before they got wise and turned it into the generic global climate debate, is nothing more than a method to keep entirely too many academics in grant money. Nothing is proved, nothing can be proved, given the lack of consistent and meaningfull data, yet just mewling and spluttering about “we’re all doomed unless WE JUST DO SOMETHING NOW” seems to be the method that works best in keeping the grant money flowing.
By the way, anybody notice how much cleaner the air is in your city these days ? When was the last time you saw a dirty, smokey car driving down the street. Doesn’t this suggest to you that perhaps things might not be as horrible and urgent as some might want you to believe ?
Earth Day = Hitler’s Birthday.
Coincidence? I think not.
From Timothy Birdnow, The American Thinker, 2004-12-21:
“According to Michel Jarraud of the World Meteorological Organization, we are talking about a rise of 1 degree in the last 100 years across the globe. This falls easily within the normal variation of temperature, and makes a mockery of the insane, desperate attempts to control greenhouse gas emissions. People need to take a deep breath and look at the normal ebb and flow of climate. […]
“The eruption of one volcano gives off more greenhouse gas than is released through emissions by mankind in an entire year. The whole greenhouse global warming argument is fatuous. With 3% of all CO2 in the atmosphere being our fault, we simply aren�t putting out that much stuff to affect our climate. […]
“Since 8700 BC there have been at least ten cold periods, and all have coincided with quiet solar activity. In short, any minor increase in temperature we see today is caused by a more active sun.[…]
“Science is apparently no longer the objective pursuit of truth, but rather a matter of political consensus. Galileo would recognize the phenomenon. The left has always believed that reality is whatever they can get people to believe, so by pushing a treaty with a �scientific consensus� written into it, they have defined a de facto truth. Once it is accepted, they can begin pushing their socialist agenda on us.
“That is the nub of the matter. The global warming scare is a political maneuver to economically damage the United States [and Canada -Vitruvius] and install a global top-down command-and-control regime to make our economic decisions. Why haven’t the signatories of Kyoto been able to fulfill their own commitments to emission reduction? Because they have no intention of spending one red cent on the environment; it has never been about that. The left has found in environmentalism the perfect con: all human activity effects the environment in some fashion.
“[…] It is much more likely, however, that we will destroy our spirit and our wealth through the adoption of draconian measures advocated by the socialist climate change people. The real horror would be to adopt the madness of Kyoto to tilt at the windmill of global warming, when the sun is the real culprit. We can�t fight the sun. Our ability to cope depends on the vigor of our science and economy, so crippling ourselves into a neo-Luddite dystopia is exactly the wrong thing to do. We must not rush headlong into the abyss of environmental shadows.”
This post answers a question I have had all week. Why has the global warming retoric been notched up? Just today there where pimping an Australian “well known scientist” claiming where in dire trouble. Same for a chinese “scientist”.
More y2K garbage. All to keep us excited.
Can’t wait too see what happens when this abomination is put to death & falls threw . I bet, they already have another fallback crisis on the way. Heck how could they not!!! All those enviro bucks just a beggin to be spent.
vitruvius – excellent. Global warming is yet another apocalpytic platform of the left, to use against ‘evil industrialist-capitalism’. And it’s been moved into a ‘faith-based’ axiom. If you don’t accept it, you are anti-(human, life, truth, whatever). You can’t question it – or else.
It hasn’t a shred of proof; you absolutely can’t prove it; we simply don’t have the data base required – you’d need several hundred thousand years for even a minimal validity. There have been too many climate variations of ‘ice-age coolings’ followed by ‘warm-ups’ followed by ‘coolings’.etc.
What is Kyoto about? It has nothing to do with pollution. It actually enables one set of countries (called ‘developing’) to pollute more and more. Another set (called ‘developed’) are expected to hand over money to the first set, when they ‘fail’ to meet their ‘lower-pollution commitments’.
These ‘commitments’ would lower their economic productivity..while the ‘developing countries’ are busy increasing their productivity AND, raking in the money from the developed countries.
Hmmm. Now- who thought this scheme up??
That’s why a Stephen Harper is the most dangerous thing to an environmentalist, but not to the environment.
Hopefully Canada can be a world leader in telling people that climate change is a bunch of gas.
Another Dook from study: Duke U this one: Drahhhmatic noose? Cool. +
Scientists cool outlook on global warming
By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 21, 2006
Global warming may not be as dramatic as some scientists have predicted.
Using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings, Duke University scientists announced yesterday that “the magnitude of future global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions.” +
via http://www.voy.com/178771/1644.html
(Boycott Bourque)
A possible motive?
“This single holiday employs at least 3,400 leaders of tax-exempt environmental groups, many pocketing $150,000 or more per year, doing quite well by doing �good.� It has become an industry for the Left, a lucrative industry that would shut down if environmental fear and doomsaying came to an end. The wealth in the environmental organization business comes from mining other peoples� wallets, using never-ending crises as tools to pry loose their money. Not surprisingly, it�s a dirty and often deceitful business that puts the �con� in conservation.”+
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22145
molarmauler,
“That’s why a Stephen Harper is the most dangerous thing to an environmentalist …”
Not true. He is just giving them the opportunity to spend their own money (directly) to support their own causes. I only wish that a whole list of special interest groups are given that same opportunity.
Ummmmm dante….Hitler was born April 20th, but good point.
Mark marks Earth Day
“The “markets first” approach was notable by its absence in, say, Eastern Europe, where government regulation of every single aspect of life resulted in environmental devastation beyond the wildest fantasies of the sinister Bush-Cheney-Enron axis of excess.
ET–absolutely correct–Kyoto is wealth transfer, nothing more, nothing less.
As for who thought it up–none other than our favourite OFF mentor, Mr. Maurice strong–Canada’s answer to everything! And signed by Liberal Lloyd Axworthy who ‘just got caught up in the moment’!
“And so too is it an outrage for the news media to tell you that most true scientists now agree that man-made global warming is a fact. What it doesn’t tell you is that roughly 500 scientists from around the world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992, just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global warming. Today that figure has grown to over 4000 scientists. Americans aren’t being told that a 1997 Gallop Poll of prominent North American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them disagreed with the man-made global warming theory.
And the deceit knows no bounds. The United Nations released a report at the end of 1996 saying global warming was a fact, yet before releasing the report, two key paragraphs were deleted from the final draft. Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual scientific analysis, said:
1. “[N]one of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2. “[N]o study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to�man-made causes.”
Obviously, those two paragraphs aren’t consistent with the political agenda the UN is pushing. So, science be damned. Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world � bar none.”+
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/environment.htm
“From the beginning it has been clear that the particular mechanisms of the Kyoto Treaty were not designed to alter the global climate in any meaningful way (even if that were possible), but was rather a manifestation of the hatred of economic progress in general, and American prosperity in particular. Kyoto was, and unfortunately still is, basically a global tax on American prosperity, aimed at redistributing much of the wealth generated by the American free market system to those countries whose own predilections for socialism have stifled their own economic prosperity.”+
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/kyoto_tax.htm
After the U.S. decided not to ratify the protocol, Russian approval remained the only stumbling block to its entry into force. The treaty requires ratification by nations responsible for 55% of industrialized countries� CO2 emissions in 1990. To meet that threshold, Russia, with 17% of CO2 emissions, had to ratify the treaty.
Russia will benefit from a great wealth transfer as [European Union] funds flow into the country in exchange for rights to Russian CO2 allowances,� says William O�Keefe, president of the board of directors of the George Marshall Institute, which has been a longtime critic of the treaty. The institute�s mission is to encourage the use of sound science in making public policy.”+
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/8243/8243Duma.html
“Can’t wait too see what happens when this abomination is put to death & falls threw . I bet, they already have another fallback crisis on the way. Heck how could they not!!! ”
Revnant, they are already working on it. Ever hear of “global dimming”, covered on PBS Nova this past week.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/
This idea is that particulate in the atmosphere, and even the contrails of aircraft are causing more solar radiation to be reflected back into space. So if we reduce air polution, more solar radiation will reach the ground and set off the global climate crisis. though. Same manure, same pile.
Maurice Strong.
Greg,
The Heidleburg appeal now has the signatures of over 20,000 scientists around the world.
dirtman I don’t doubt it. The mantra of Kyoto has been politics from the beginning. Any time a politician tells you that you are saving the environment by buying a credit from someone else, you know it’s BS. Scientists have been held hostage by funding. If they don’t support the political line, they are at risk of loosing what funding they do recieve, but while doing so, many have found that they are loosing their intellectual credibility. The age of the internet has put an end to the closed shop mentality of the science fields. Todays research is available to the world as soon as it’s published, we don’t have to believe just because someone tells us, it is so. We can research all points of view and make up our own minds. A little more reading and a lot less of blindly following where others may go is often a good start.
You know this is twice you’ve posted this same article in one week, Kate, only in this case the author ads a complaint at the end to the effect that his work was discredited and he is upset with the fact. I have already answered most of his points in the articles earlier incarnation, so won’t do so here. It would be nice on your part, however, if you could move the debate forward by ot simply reposting material that I’ve already refuted.
Ripoff by Fear $$$$$$$$$
Ripoff by Liberal Porker$; Smash the Pig Trough!
Prime Minister Harper: Cutoff the $$$$$$. +
Review The Science
Terence Corcoran, Financial Post
Published: Thursday, April 20, 2006
Two weeks ago on this page 60 scientists, most of them climate specialists who are skeptical of official global-warming theory, signed an open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The Skeptic 60 called on the Prime Minister to launch a review of the science behind Canadian climate policy. This week, 90 scientists from the other side of the issue rallied with a competing letter, arguing that the science is settled and we should move on to action.
…
In the scientists’ words, “we urge you and your government to develop an effective national strategy” to deal with climate change. But eight of the signators are employees of Environment Canada, Ottawa’s leading climate bureaucracy. Under what bureaucratic regime do civil servants — members of the government — sign letters urging the government to take action?
At least another 11 of the scientists work for other government agencies, such as Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the federal department responsible for policies and programs in support of Canada’s oceans and inland waters. Another agency heavily represented is the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, along with the Pacific Fisheries Conservation Council.
Last week, the Harper government threw a blanket over Environment Canada employee Mark Tushingham before he got to publicize his novel, Hotter Than Hell. That’s just for a piece of fiction. What would be the appropriate treatment for the 20 or so civil servants who actually signed a non-fiction letter telling the government what policy to adopt?
Still another nine signators are recipients of Canada Chairs, federal government-funded academic appointments at universities across Canada. And five of the scientists who call for action and more government funding are big recipients of government funding. Chief among this group is Gordon McBean, head of the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences.
The Climate 90 letter, in fact, was released through Mr. McBean’s government-funded foundation. A number of the signators are in turn recipients of funding from Mr. McBean’s foundation. For example, Konrad Gajewski of the University of Ottawa received $265,700 from the McBean operation to study Arctic climate variability. Adam Monahan of the University of Victoria got $130,000 to study interactions in space and time in the climate system.
In all, at least eight of the Climate 90 received money from the McBean foundation. Is it appropriate for Mr. McBean, dispenser of cash, to be soliciting recipients of the cash to sign a letter to the government claiming scientific alarm as justification for more cash?
Another half dozen in the group are environmental activists, members of the United Nations climate assessment team or with other governments. In all, at least 40 of the Climate 90 are government-related or government-funded researchers and activists.
Aside from the dubious origins of the Climate 90 letter, it certainly supports the Skeptic 60 claim that there is major disagreement among scientists. The Skeptic 60 letter can be found at http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/ financialpost/story.html?id=3711460 e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605.
We have clear evidence of scientific disagreement, and that’s just in Canada. Internationally, the debate over climate-change theory intensifies daily. Two major conferences, one in Europe and the other in New Mexico, … +
http://www.paulding.net/bin/url.cgi/13261.7
David Yamaha has moved on to his next “screwsade”:
Save The H20: Water, he drools; water is his next mantra.
Water is>>> SACRED… Yamaha hopes he is the custodian/high priest of the age of Aquarius…
Suzuki and the Waterkeepers +
Fiber Magazine | Get Informed | David Suzuki and Waterkeepers
The average human being is roughly 60 per cent water by weight, nearly 40 litres … It is the tide of life itself, the sacred source. http://www.davidsuzuki.org …
http://www.fibermag.com/get_informed.html – 15k –
Has anyone else checked out the cover of the latest issue of “Vanity Fair”? (I won’t buy it and support the lunatics…)
It’s their “SPECIAL GREEN ISSUE,” and the headline is “A THREAT GREATER THAN TERRORISM: GLOBAL WARMING.”
And then it gets really hilarious. It shows against a GREEN jungle backdrop, Robert F. Kennedy, George Clooney (GMAB), Al Gore (GMAB-squared), all in green, with, LOL (I’m rolling on the floor), Julia Roberts, standing above them like a guardian angel, in a you-guessed-it green evening gown with a fern-like wreath adorning her flowing tresses. Who does she think she is: a wood nymph?
The Headline under the names of our fanatic and fearless foursome is “and their call for A NEW AMERICAN REVOLUTION”. gag
‘Like they’re all experts on the environment? I might cut Robert F. Kennedy a little slack, though I’m not sure I’m on solid ground here, but the other three? It’s easy to hug a tree, but I wonder what their stand is on saving human babies from the annual abortion slaughter (1.5 million in the U.S. and over 100,000 in Canada)
which is a far greater scourge on our planet than a green environment.
last sentence in my post should have read “…a far greater scourge on our planet than an endangered environment.”
maz2 – I’m surprised it’s only 40 of the 90. Who else is paying for climate research? Where’s the entrepreneurial spirit in this country? Why aren’t there a bunch of companies out there doing emissions-reduction projects and selling subscriptions to concerned citizens? “Do this for your neighbours’ grandkids!” And private police forces, that would be a good idea, too. “Make your country safer – hire a cop!” What’s wrong with this country? Why do we wait for the government to do everything for us?
The 60 scientists noted in the Terence Corcoran piece are not just Canadian, but worldwide, as I’ve noted previously. They couldn’t scrape up 60 Canadian scientists. They are also, for the most part and as stated at their own website, retired. They also appear to be funded by Calgary Petro Dollars.
Actually, the idea that the 90 are looking for more cash is a smear as well. As many real, working climatologists have pointed out; they have done their research and are speaking out as the science dictates. Any money spent has to be spent on ameliorative measures (spend money on more efficient engines, not cloud studies).
Rich Karlsgaard’s Digital Rules blog has two entries (two most recent as of April 23, also permalinked here and here) pertinent to this discussion. He’s rapidly becoming one of my favourite blogistes outside of Canada.
Ooooops. Should be “Karlgaard,” not “Karlsgaard.” Apologies.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn23.html#
Mark Steyn has, above, a great column on the fraud of global warming.
There is no proof of irreversible global warming; there can’t be; as so many scientistis have pointed out, we simply don’t have the data-base, which requires thousands of years.
Kyoto is one thing only – an anti-western, anti-capitalist and particularly, naive anti-US economic agenda. It actually promotes and enables pollution, by exempting all ‘developing countries’, which are the worst polluters from any action! And, in addition, it sets up a financial scheme to enable these worst-polluters to receive funding from the West, only the West, defined as the ‘developed countries’. Now- tell me, what does such a scheme have to do with pollution? Nothing.
What’s behind mysterious booms?
San Diego Union-Tribune ^ | April 23, 2006 | Alex Roth
Posted on 04/23/2006 8:27:27 AM PDT by sandyeggo
What’s behind mysterious booms?
Phenomena produce theories, but no answers
By Alex Roth STAFF WRITER
April 23, 2006
Life can serve up a good mystery every once in a while. Weird things happen that defy explanation, that make us wonder how much we really know about the world.
Something of the sort happened in San Diego County shortly before 9 a.m. Tuesday, April 4, and so far no one has come forward with an explanation.
… But who knows?
Maybe we’re not being told everything. Maybe the Earth still does things that present-day humanity doesn’t understand. + more …
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1619976/posts
Thanks, Garth Wood, for the link. It led me to George Musser’s posting:
Are you a Global Warming Skeptic, Part II
which summarizes the arguments extremely well.
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=are_you_a_global_warming_skeptic_part_ii&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
What is worrisome is that the ‘global warming as caused by humans’ crowd has moved itself out of scientific fallibilism and into dogma. You are not permitted to question their conclusion which is that
1)global warming is real; and
2) global warming is caused by humans, particularly industrial humans.
You can’t question either of points 1 or 2. They are not interested in questions, in counter-data, nothing.
And, they then link the Kyoto Treaty to their dogma of points 1 and 2. The fact that Kyoto has nothing to do with lessening pollution and is instead, an attack against developed countries (eg the US) and an economic transfer to developing countries – seems to be lost on the New Age Crowd.
Global Warming, as Steyn points out, is the new apocalpytic mantra of the sophist leftists. They seem to flock to dogma, to emotive catastrophes. At one time, it was a ‘nuclear meltdown’; another time, it was global cooling; now, it’s global warming. The axioms are always the same:
– It’s the US
– It’s apocalyptic disaster
As Steyn says, ‘environmentalism doesn’t need the support of the church; it’s a church in itself”.
ET:
You’re welcome. I too enjoyed the Scientific American blog — I thought the arguments against GW were well-summarized and useful as discussion points.
I can remember the time when I’d finished reading Bjorn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist. While I didn’t necessarily agree with everything he said, I admired his willingness to say it, and the thoroughness with which he canvassed existing data sources. Then I read the “responses” to Lomborg’s book in Scientific American.
I was stunned. There was virtually no content — it was all ad hominem attack, IIRC. I was so pissed that I stopped buying/reading SciAm. Publishing the responses (as opposed to intelligent discussion/debate) forever cheapened SciAm’s ’til-then high reputation in my mind. I thought it was interesting (and a bit rich) that George Musser would worry that “discussions about science are being infected by a certain style of political debate. People who hold different interpretations of climate data (and other scientific questions) are talking past one another, sometimes unable to communicate even on basic points,” when his own magazine was one of the major contributors to this crisis in scientific thinking, inquiry and critique.
Related: “Last week, the Harper government threw a blanket over Environment Canada employee Mark Tushingham before he got to publicize his novel, Hotter Than Hell. That’s just for a piece of fiction.” +
Did Tushingham plagiarize the title of his fiction/novel?
Simon Sheppard would like to know.
Check links here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1555835961?v=glance – 118k
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000001EKX?v=glance – 104k
The band would like to know, also.
The fact that the “Climate 90” are either govermenent bureaucrats or those collecting grant money from government means that they have their own biases in keeping the money flowing.
Take a look around the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences website.
http://www.cfcas.org/index_e.html
Here’s the list of funded projects (typically $200 – 300k per grant)
http://www.cfcas.org/fundedprojectsCLIe.htm
The Skeptic 60 are respected climate scientists from around the world, and they don’t have a vested financial interest in what Canada does
There is no evidence that the Skeptic 60 are being funded or have ever been funded by “Calgary Petro Dollars” (LOL). It’s funny because I tend to see many more environment groups lining up to collect “greenmail” from Oil companies.
http://www.pembina.org/ces/experience.php
The Skeptic 60 wants an open review of the science, the Climate 90 wants to close down the argument. An inconvenient truth indeed.
Dave,
But they are not asking that the money keep flowing to them. You don’t seem to grasp this. If they wanted that scenario, they would say “Well, we don’t know, and need more money for research”. But the point is, they do know, and are asking that money be directed such that
the effects of Global Warming should be averted. That means spending money on things like alternative technologies, not climatological studies.
You do realize that the posters to this list are among the last five per cent of the population that hasn’t got with the program, don’t you?
As for the skeptic 60, as I say, they had to scour the whole world to scare up 60 names and, as it says at their website, alot of the core group are retired weathermen.
bcl – at one time, 95% of the population of the world thought that the earth was flat. So?
At one time, 95% of the population thought that disease was caused by The Evil Eye. So? A majority opinion doesn’t mean that opinion is valid!
It’s incredible, but you don’t seem to have a logical bone in your body!
And, a further illogical opinion – when you state that ‘they DO know’..and are requesting that the money be spent on tactics to avert global warming. So? They are still involved. why?
Climatological studies will have to be maintained, to ensure (1) that their opinions remain valid; and (2) to ensure that IF actions are taken against CO2, etc, that these actions will have results. These individuals will be heavily involved in both (1) and (2).
But, you don’t seem to understand. There is no PROOF of this assumption of global warming. We don’t have the data base. The fact that you, and some others, accept this, just like the era of the flat earth, doesn’t make it a valid conclusion. Why not? Because, just as in the era of the flat earth opinion, we don’t have the data base to affirm/deny this opinion.
Oh- are you planning to answer any questions on any threads, or do you just assert your unsubstantiated opinions.
“I think we can all agree which people would be “needed” –
….perhaps Scarlett Johansson in a fur-trimmed bikini”
“From 1940 to 1970, there was very slight global cooling. ……..That’s why the doom-mongers decided the big bucks were in the new-ice-age blockbusters.
…….. in 1970 the planet stopped its very slight global cooling and began to undergo very slight global warming.
……. in 1998 the planet stopped its very slight global warming and began to resume very slight global cooling. And this time the doom-mongers said, “Look, do we really want to rewrite the bumper stickers every 30 years? Let’s just call it ‘climate change.'”
Kyoto, like the anti smoking groups and the anti – America groups permote junk science spewed by socialist scientists – bought and paid for by M. Strong Liberano/Dipper elitist type thugs – to distroy private buisnessmen. Put the gun registry apoligists into that muck pot also.
By the way, an interesting thing about the 90 Canadian scientists who wrote Harper, is that they are all and only Canadian. I wonder why.
1) Could it be because research in Canada is in the unique position of being primarily funded by the federal gov’t? You see, Canadians, heavily taxed, don’t get wealthy enough not merely to fund their own industries (we require foreign investment) but we can’t even fund our own research. The federal gov’t does that.
So- these Canadian researchers all require federal research funds – even to keep their graduate students funded, to keep their research centres open, to even keep themselves funded. Those Canada Research Chairs are funded by the federal gov’t – for 5 to 7 years, and without that funding – whoosh – there goes your chair and your labs and your grad students.
So- that letter was written only by Canadians, for one reason. To maintain the security of their funding from the federal gov’t. As they themselves wrote in their letter, “Canada needs a national climate change strategy with continued investments in research to track the rate and nature of changes”….
So- that’s why only Canadians wrote, and why 90 of them wrote. Their positions, as well as their research, and their ability to even have grad students – depends completely on the federal gov’t funding them.
Now – the 60 scientists who wrote against global warming AS A TRUTH, instead asserted that “we need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change”..because, as they said “global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this ‘natural noise'”.
They too want more research.
So- why did the Canadians write? Because so much of their research themes are focused around this fallacious conclusion (global warming is due to humans) and they are concerned that they will lose their funding if the gov’t changes its research themes – and instead, focuses, let’s say, on alternative sources of energy, from, e.g, hydrogen or helium.
“But they are not asking that the money keep flowing to them. You don’t seem to grasp this. If they wanted that scenario, they would say “Well, we don’t know, and need more money for research”.”
CFCAS is primarily a research group dispensing grants (they have received over $110 million in GoC funding to do this) and their current mandate continues until 2011. It is their reason to exist.
Nowhere in their letter or the CFCAS website do they say that all the research is done. If they did, they should be returning money to the GoC.
“But the point is, they do know, and are asking that money be directed such that the effects of Global Warming should be averted. That means spending money on things like alternative technologies, not climatological studies.”
Well…you better send a press release to the CFCAS as over 60% of their current projects are climatological. Many studies are just trying to develop understanding how climate is changing, and not even proving that anthropomorphic (man-made) Co2 is the cause.
Is climate changing? Yes, always has and always will. But the Kyoto argument that all of climate change is manmade, and we know exactly what to do to fix it and make all climate change stop is bogus.
“You do realize that the posters to this list are among the last five per cent of the population that hasn’t got with the program, don’t you?”
And which program is that? I haven’t seen 95% of people changing their behavior (buying fewer and smaller cars, moving from houses into apartments, not taking vacations by air, etc.) due to any global warming concern. I doubt that it is 95% and I’d pay less attention to what people say they will do and more to what they actually do.
Most people confuse Kyoto with general pollution reduction and improving the environment. As more people realize that spending billions into regulating a naturally occuring airborne fertilizer (Co2) will do nothing to clean up the Great Lakes, or sewage being dumped into Sydney Harbour, Kyoto support dwindles to nothing.
“As for the skeptic 60, as I say, they had to scour the whole world to scare up 60 names and, as it says at their website, alot of the core group are retired weathermen.”
These are not the only ones who question the theory. I’d prefer that we spend environmental money on solving real environmental problems rather than made up ones.