Call it a prediction….
Related – 141 Scientists Sign Letter Sent to UN Secretary-General Questioning Global Warming…
1. Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Dr. Sci., mathematician and astrophysicist, Head of the Russian-Ukrainian Astrometria project on the board of the Russian segment of the ISS, Head of Space Research Laboratory at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia
2. Göran Ahlgren, docent organisk kemi, general secretary of the Stockholm Initiative, Professor of Organic Chemistry, Stockholm, Sweden
3. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.
4. J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000, Pretoria, South Africa.
5. Jock Allison, PhD, ONZM, formerly Ministry of Agriculture Regional Research Director, Dunedin, New Zealand ….
No fruit fly guys, though.
Yes -Canada’s inaction is a global embarassment
42% of respondents are hyperventilating drama queens who should not be allowed input on decisions weightier than what colour socks to wear.
Here’s a newsflash for them – People, if they think of Canada at all, are thinking of how to get here, not what a thuggish petro-state we are.
Some readers may find this version of the
letter’s web page to be better formatted:
http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/
Notice that 24, or 17 per-cent, of those 141 scientists are from Canada!
While we’re on the subject of Suzuki , sixth graders get it , why don’t you ? Ripped from Watts Up .
Thanks Vit, I’ve changed the link.
My thanks too Vit.
Pat
This gives me hope…….
Let’s also not forget Inhofe’s list on his Senate Minority Report
(he’s up to around 700 now)
I’ve seen too many petitions ignored to put much faith this one will influence anyone.
The petition project of 1997 had 30,000 names on it, and never got a bit of mainstream attention.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
54% naysayers?
well, a myth ith ath good ath a mile as the thaying goeth.
Kathryn – have another look – its 32% – not 42%.
I haven’t given Macleans a second thought since their vile “How Scary” front page headline over a picture of Stockwell Day way back circa 2000/2001.
However, in this case, I give them credit for providing a “proper” answer in this poll, and not just the usual AGW version of ‘Have you beat your wife lately?’.
I notice Nils-Axel Morner PhD is listed (#91) He is the top expert in the world on sea levels. He was the one that sent a letter in Oct.to the President of the Maldives (copt to the NP) and told him to quit being a alarmist…as the sea levels are NOT rising and they have nothing to worry about.
President Mohamed Nasheed was the one that held meetings underwater trying to create sympathy and CTV ran it over and over and over and over!! They were really sucked in!
dp ‘W’ refused to sign that Kayottee treaty. Meanwhile the big bungling whacko that Canada had in power, at the time; fell over his own feet to get in line, offer up our country on the plate, hell bent to fulfill the dictates of his own dear ‘Unka Mo’ who was prodding him in his hindquarters to sell us out.
We have a very different Prime Minister now…and I, like MaryM, am hoping…. for the good guys. Our Prime Minister is on the side of Canadian Citizens and taxpayers. As long as the troika of traitors (Dippers/blockistas/liberanos) and their pals in the media keep slandering and trashing the soldiers who fight for their sorry, sagging hides, the Prime Minister will get the capital(from we, the people) to fight blatant opportunist (from the rest of the world and the AGW cannibal)), fanatical Climategate deniers, corrupt scientists and bureaucrats, and the agenda of the One World Government human hating commies. We are on death row but we are not dead yet. Keep fighting…thanks again Kate and posters for all the ammo.
That poll is horrible. Nevertheless the “no” + “climate change is a hoax” option are currently at approximately 70%.
Goreacle’s Testimony to the Congregation at the Copehopenechangen Assembly:
I am not now; nor, have I ever been a member of the AGW Party.
Amen.
…-
“Record Cold Snap Still Grips Bay Area
SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Wednesday had the potential to be the coldest day yet as a cold spell held its grip on the Bay Area, a National Weather Service forecaster said.
Forecaster Duane Dykema said Wednesday could top Tuesday, when a number of Bay Area cities saw record low temperatures, as the coldest day of the week.
A freeze warning was in effect Wednesday night into Thursday morning for the North Bay interior valleys, where low temperatures were expected in the 20s.
On Tuesday, San Rafael had a low of 28 degrees, tying the city’s previous record for the date set in 1972. The North Bay had some of the lowest recorded temperatures in general, Dykema said, with many areas reaching the low-20s.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2404043/posts
Impressive and rounded out line up, good to see some serious number crunchers, geologists, climate specialists, etc.
Of course the Goracle accolytes will make them all out to be “DENIERS”, or some other ridiculous trash talk.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Kill the climate hoax tax! Up the Carbon revolt!
At the time of Kyoto, Clinton/Gore were the US administration. They agreed to the treaty, but never bothered to send it to the Senate for the required ratification. This because the Senate had already made their position clear, 95-0 against a Kyoto type agreement. Al Gore as a former Senator and VP presiding over the Senate, had so little influence that not one Democrat, even Sen. Kenedy agreed with him. G W Bush simply continued Clinton’s policy, that Kyoto was a dead issue with the Senate. I suspect (hope) that is also the present Senate position. Harry Byrd (D) co-author of the original resolution remains in office.
Harper claims he will sign if the burden to Canada is slight enough. What i am concerned with is if Canada signs on, we are doomed to abide by the new world gov. plans and demands. No getting out folks unless the co-signees let us out.
Nonsense from MacLeans (to the left) … what a surprise?
I’m inclined to agree with ol’dp there… sending a message to the UN that offends their egos and challenges their agenda will have no effect.
The UN are a corrupt and criminal political entity that exists to sustain only itself.
This is the equivalent of petitioning the mob because they are intimidating your customers and looting your business.
The correct response to the UN’s very existence lies with the physical removal of the their base of operations and cutting off their sources of revenue. Complete the work by prosecuting the crooks who thrive there.
BTW Pulkovo is a famous old astronomical institute
and observatory.
I haven’t seen any comments here re the obvious attempt to skew the results by offering a clearly unacceptably worded third option.
Either the poll’s author is a devious bastard or totally inept.
(My point is the obfuscation in defining the issue)
If you vote for #3 you incriminate yourself as being uninformed and therefor your opinion is unworthy. Nobody is saying climate isn’t changing; just that it’s NOT being caused by Human activity.
They need to be smacked around for that kind of BS.
I think the correct response to the UN is to ignore it. Seems to work well for anyone they have tried to sanction. The UN is all talk & no teeth. We have only our own government to fight on this issue. I think there will be an agreement for the cameras at Copenhagen, which everyone will then ignore, much like Kyoto. Makes the chattering classes think they are accomplishing something, and keeps them out of the way of the productive people. The only real threat is if the productive people are taxed to the point where the choose to exit the system, produce for themselves in non-taxable ways, and leave the welfare state to starve.
Re: poll
I actually think that there is a significant contingent of the editorial staff that questions AGW. And that the balance of the poll choices offered reflects that. Macleans is not your fathers macleans ever since Andrew coynes to the lead.
A good summary that was published before the CRU emails came to light.
/bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
Bless them!
This is good from FP.
Peter Foster fisks a Dr.Weaver on his ‘ignore the CRU leaks’ stance.
http://www.financialpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=2320044&p=2
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/09/sensenbrenner-climate-fascism/
Sensenbrenner to Tell Copenhagen: No Climate Laws Until ‘Scientific Fascism’ Ends
FOXNews.com
‘Republican lawmaker says he’s going to U.N. climate conference to inform world leaders that despite any promises made by President Obama, no new laws will be passed in the U.S. until “scientific fascism” ends.
The ranking Republican on the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming said Tuesday he is going to attend the Copenhagen conference on climate change to inform world leaders that despite any promises made by President Obama, no new laws will be passed in the United States until the “scientific fascism” ends.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., also wrote to Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on Monday to demand that researchers who authored e-mails and documents that demonstrate climate change data were manipulated should not be allowed to participate in the latest report written by the U.N. panel.
“I call it ‘scientific fascism,'” Sensenbrenner said during a press conference with fellow climate change skeptics. “The U.N. should throw a red flag. …. They relied on these scientists unjustifiably in my opinion.”
Sensenbrenner wrote that “these bad actors” limited peer-reviewed studies used by the IPCC, which is leading the Copenhagen conference on climate change.
“Their behavior has caused grave damage to the public trust in climate science in general, and to the IPCC, in particular,” Sensenbrenner wrote. “They should not be allowed to do so in the future. I therefore request that you and the co-chairs of each of the three IPCC working groups ensure that none of the individuals involved in these nefarious e-mail exchanges participate as contributors, reviewers, or in any other capacity in the preparation of” the next IPCC report.’
It appears the “Hope ‘n Whoring” treaty is going to be in trouble.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
i don’t think a lot has changed – but we are in the age of many questions – as we have always been.
oz Senator Steve Fielding (an engineer) in washington on his own dime.
part 1 features mr. fred singer adressing a conference in washington – what the H_E_Double-Hockey-Sticks is going on here?
part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ImvWeTk6KM
part 2 (the first 1:30 of part 2 is the same as the last 1:30 of part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK_NR_fqnXY
it is encouraging.
Yeah, that list went to my MP, Prentice and Harper today, as part of my daily missive to reason.
I’m hopefull that nothing will be agreed upon other than to keep meeting, but I’m pushing for a funding cut off if they don’t pull all references for their “science” that relies on the folks at the centre of the CRU hack. They can’t of course, as the whole thing depends on them.
This one is going to lead my email tomorrow, http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553 , and whatever other nice bits and pieces of reality I can find.
I’m not really very hopefull, it’s like being in the audience at a slasher flick, you know that the pretty girl going off by herself is dead meat, and inside you’re screaming “don’t do it”, but you know that it’s going to happen right before your eyes, and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
Scripted out does seem appropriate, given what we are watching unfold.
Actually folks I think that we must expend no end of effort to meet CO2 reductions whether Koyoto or Copenhagen. The science is settled there can be no more debate. We must find someone who can computer model our CO2 output just like the computer models used by the CRUs around the world. We must be very careful about selecting our data inputs. It is possible to show with one smoke stack that our out put has gone to zero if we can just find one that is shut down the day we take the measurement. Then of course we must make our computer models proprietory so no one else can look at it. We also must be willing and able to delete our data base at a moments notice. Of course we will have to not keep any written record or email. In fact I hope Kate deletes this comment so no trace is left behind.
Thank you for your co-operation one and all and I look forward to working with you again in the future.
Good on the Canadians on that list…saw a few of them there.
Kate, you should have at least published up to number seven on the list on your webpage. I think that man deserves more public recognition.
“42% of respondents are hyperventilating drama queens who should not be allowed input on decisions weightier than what colour socks to wear.”
You forgot to mention that they should be sent to Khmer Rouge style re-education camps. Right Comrade Kathryn ?
DaninVan @7:57 – your “unacceptably worded” is my “Sing it, Sister!”
And look who’s in the lead.
i agree with daninvan @ 7:57.
We are quite aware of the changing pattern of the climate over the last 2000 years. That is what the AGW crowd has been trying to hide.
Well, bluetech, true enough. I just believe that high-handed, devil-may-care triumphalism does have it’s place.
…its…
This war of petitions — 1,700 scientists is stronger than 144 scientists — is totally foreign to science. I’ve been a professional scientist for 30 years and not once have been polled or asked to sign an open letter.
Unlike politics, science does not work by consensus. The best idea eventually wins, regardless of the initial number of its proponents. In science, the majority can be wrong.
Oh, and skepticism is the foundation stone of science. For a scientist, to be called a skeptic is a form of praise. I personally insist on being one.