Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘have The Courage

[♦ nivek ♦]

Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference

December 11, 2007

Clink this link to original, fuckpot of links found there.

Posted By Marc Morano - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov - 7:45 AM ET

 

Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference

 

BALI, Indonesia - An international team of scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore, descended on Bali this week to urge the world to "have the courage to do nothing" in response to UN demands.

 

Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.

 

"Climate change is a non problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants.

 

"The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)" Monckton added. (LINK)

 

Monckton also noted that the UN has not been overly welcoming to the group of skeptical scientists.

 

"UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings," Monckton explained.

 

"It is a circus here," agreed Australian scientist Dr. David Evans. Evans is making scientific presentations to delegates and journalists at the conference revealing the latest peer-reviewed studies that refute the UN's climate claims.

 

"This is the most lavish conference I have ever been to, but I am only a scientist and I actually only go to the science conferences," Evans said, noting the luxury of the tropical resort. (Note: An analysis by Bloomberg News on December 6 found: "Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year." - LINK)

 

Evans, a mathematician who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, recently converted to a skeptical scientist about man-made global warming after reviewing the new scientific studies. (LINK)

 

"We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming. We have the missing [human] signature [in the atmosphere], we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years," Evans said in an interview with the Inhofe EPW Press Blog. Evans authored a November 28 2007 paper "Carbon Emissions Don't Cause Global Warming." (LINK)

 

Evans touted a new peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists appearing in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society which found "Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence."[/color[ (LINK)

 

"Most of the people here have jobs that are very well paid and they depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. They are not going to be very receptive to the idea that well actually the science has gone off in a different direction," Evans explained.

 

[inhofe EPW Press Blog Note: Several other recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. For most recent sampling see: New Peer-Reviewed Study finds 'Solar changes significantly alter climate' (11-3-07) (LINK) & "New Peer-Reviewed Study Halves the Global Average Surface Temperature Trend 1980 - 2002" (LINK) & New Study finds Medieval Warm Period '0.3C Warmer than 20th Century' (LINK) For a more comprehensive sampling of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007 see "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" LINK ]

 

‘IPCC is unsound'

 

UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports since its inception going back to 1990, had a clear message to UN participants.

 

"There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any affect whatsoever on the climate," Gray, who shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to the UN IPCC, explained. (LINK)

 

"All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails," Gray, who wrote the book "The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," said.

 

"It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics," he added.

 

‘Dangerous time for science'

 

Evans, who believes the UN has heavily politicized science, warned there is going to be a "dangerous time for science" ahead.

 

"We have a split here. Official science driven by politics, money and power, goes in one direction. Unofficial science, which is more determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data, has now started to move off in a different direction" away from fears of a man-made climate crisis, Evans explained.

 

"The two are splitting. This is always a dangerous time for science and a dangerous time for politics. Historically science always wins these battles but there can be a lot of causalities and a lot of time in between," he concluded.

 

Carbon trading ‘fraud?'

 

New Zealander Bryan Leland of the International Climate Science Coalition warned participants that all the UN promoted discussions of "carbon trading" should be viewed with suspicion.

 

"I am an energy engineer and I know something about electricity trading and I know enough about carbon trading and the inaccuracies of carbon trading to know that carbon trading is more about fraud than it is about anything else," Leland said.

 

"We should probably ask why we have 10,000 people here [in Bali] in a futile attempt to ‘solve' a [climate] problem that probably does not exist," Leland added.

 

‘Simply not work'

 

Owen McShane, the head of the International Climate Science Coalition, also worried that a UN promoted global approach to economics would mean financial ruin for many nations.

 

"I don't think this conference can actually achieve anything because it seems to be saying that we are going to draw up one protocol for every country in the world to follow," McShane said. (LINK)

 

"Now these countries and these economies are so diverse that trying to presume you can put all of these feet into one shoe will simply not work," McShane explained.

 

"Having the same set of rules apply to everybody will blow some economies apart totally while others will be unscathed and I wouldn't be surprised if the ones who remain unscathed are the ones who write the rules," he added.

 

‘Nothing happening at this conference'

 

Professor Dr. William Alexander, emeritus of the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, warned poor nations and their residents that the UN policies could mean more poverty and thus more death.

 

"My message is specifically for the poor people of Africa. And there is nothing happening at this conference that can help them one little bit but there is the potential that they could be damaged," Alexander said. (LINK)

 

"The government and people of Africa will have their attention drawn to reducing climate change instead of reducing poverty," Alexander added.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.

New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds ‘Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence’

By EPW Blog Monday, December 10, 2007

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

 

(Potfulla links at URL within article)

 

An inconvenient new peer-reviewed study published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology.

Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence:

 

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

 

These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).

 

The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).

 

The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”

 

Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”

 

Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface and thus the climate.” Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly.

 

Now on the web at http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/p...ec-10-2007.html

Contact: Dr S Fred Singer, President, SEPP singer@SEPP.org 703-920-2744

Posted 12/10 at 09:52 AM

[HuaiDan]

Were it not for the link provided, I would've sworn this was an Onion spoof.

 

Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.

"Climate change is a non problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants.

 

As has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, climate change is a problem. This guy must be one of the aliens who want to make earth's climate a bit more home-like.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Were it not for the link provided, I would've sworn this was an Onion spoof.

 

Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.

"Climate change is a non problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants.

 

 

Dan quoth:

 

As has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, climate change is a problem. This guy must be one of the aliens who want to make earth's climate a bit more home-like.

 

I'd like to see this proof Danimal.

 

Thousands yammering for, thousands more against. Who to believe in this mess?

 

Shit changes, no doubt. Evidence of CO2 poisoning the atmosphere as THE agent of change is yet to be found.

 

kFL

[HuaiDan]

The same could be said for controlled demolition on 9/11.

 

 

 

Climate changes are occurring, but our good Lord here denies it across the board. Had he instead remarked that man-made climate is a non issue, it still wouldn't be entirely true in my book, but I wouldn't be so quick to raise an objection either.

[♦ nivek ♦]

The same could be said for controlled demolition on 9/11.

 

 

 

Climate changes are occurring, but our good Lord here denies it across the board. Had he instead remarked that man-made climate is a non issue, it still wouldn't be entirely true in my book, but I wouldn't be so quick to raise an objection either.

 

 

I read these articles, have little problem finding the professional and work related information on the scientists doing that information making.

 

Find in turn that the folks saying that what is happening is a natural event with little to worry about more grounded and seeped in science than the "chicken-goreists" who proclaim "Doom is upon us!!1!!!".

 

Pacific National Labs in Richland, Wa, just an hour's drive from me is a think tank, science center, and spot where data is gathered and collated, spindled, mutilated, wrapped, and observed, then commented on by folks who are knowing experts in their fields.

 

I know and have worked for many of those folks. When I need an answer, something that is as "side v side neutral" as I can obtain, their opinions are *gold*.

 

Added to the pile of research is tons of net bourne opinion pieces, news shots, articles and even released scientific journals.

 

When one looks at the pile and works things out for themselves, evidence shows things are happening about the way they always do at observed and scientifically verified times. "Shit Happens" and again its is happening now.

 

I am not a geologist, nor do I play one on the net. (Too busy being a diplomated BranE Sturgeon) But am an parttime rock hound, love formations and the resulting geographic leavings. Live close enough to the Canadian border and the resulting end of glacial leavings from the many Ice Ages. Rocks and many formations show that the PNW was innundated by ice many times. Some of the experts tell me more than 60 times flows of ice covered the border of Canada and US, pushing and molding a lot of what is *today*.

 

What does that have to do with shit and price of tea? Just 12k years ago was cold enough to do that. In processes since, little ice ages have happened and changed things that can be observed *now*.

 

Dan.. I don't expect anyone to change their minds with my prattle. I enjoy science, know folks to ask when I'm stuck, and halfassed intelligent enuff to generate an opinion.

 

We indeed may be slipping into a fornt end of the next little ice age, that leading into the big one. If so, be fun to be able to live long enough to see "who was right".

 

kL

[Evan]

Whether global warming is occuring or not is still a massive debate. There are some upsides and downsides to it at this point. I agree from what I've seen that Global Warming is happening. Man-made? I think to an extent. It's also been way too politicized and everyone is trampling all over each to stop the end of the world.

 

I enjoy reading these articles with different viewpoints and evidence Skip N. Church, but why do you keep pointing out the peer-reviewed parts? The IPCC was a peer-reviewed publication as well if that is what you're getting at. I'm thinking you point it out to prove its legitimacy?

 

The one thing I will definitely argue as fact is that this world is overpopulated. Solutions to Global Warming are very useful for us as well when it comes to that crisis Oo.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Evan,

 

"Peer Reviewed" is the battle cry by our Board's own "Entomologist turned Protector of All Trees, Opinions Not Wanted, Mind Made Up, Don't Follow Links, Whatever You Say Is Of No Accord, Obviously Ignorant And Lying" poster.

 

Every single discussion he continues to refer back to the UN's little mission to help control Global Climate Change.

 

Not just change, but inevitable "Goredom, terror alert HIGH, Gonna Happen!, you can't post shit that is of ANY WORTH (MY MIND IS MADE UP, LALALALLLALALALLALLALALALLALALALALLALALALALALALLALA!" sorta cat.

 

Rather than discuss and offer obverse views, he stands or dies on this report from IPCC.

 

Despite reports URL'd here in other GC threads, published by know houses, by authors with impeccable scientific backgrounds and professional vitae the LALLLALALLLLALALLALALALALLA goes on.

 

I've given up caring, other than to push a few more more reports for folks to read, discuss and hopefully make up their minds on what may be happening.

 

Otherwise I've got a llama to shear and a few spikes to set.

 

kL

[Evan]

I definitely agree with you that they are completely set on the idea that we are the entire focus of global warming and won't change their minds at all. I've read those articles and I understand the points made along with the consensus that we aren't the main cause of global warming. However terrible this blindfaith is that people are following, it has a lot of positive benefits unlike the dickless fundamentalists.

 

I said before that I lean towards Global Warming having its man-made contributions, but the destruction of the environment is all man-made. The billions of dollars being poured into environmentally friendly research is what makes me happy.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Evan,

 

I live on the bitter eastern end of the Columbia River Gorge, in Oregon, about 300 yards from the rivers edge.

 

Windy place here. Hundreds, maybe thousands of windmills being place on hillsides all around us for electricity generation. Got a ton of pics archived, can show for dramatic effect.

 

What bothers me about all these 'mills is that where they do work when wind blows (often)(not dependable enough to chart, but obviously enough to put 'mills up), the costs to build the actual tools, set them in place, wire them, and then try to get this voltage into the existing grid is "ginormous".

 

Everything but the copper and concrete in this is *high tech*. The steels that the mount posts are built of to withstand rotation from generators and winds are "good shit". Expensive materials made to last for decades or longer.

Propellers are made of a lightweight higher -tech fibreglass that helps the 60 foot propeller survive bird strikes and the assorted things that fly with the air gusts that happen here.

Generators weighing tons are lifted up, and all of them are miracles of technology and materials not particularly friendly to the enviroment if scattered around.

 

Roads were cut across formerly gently handled lands, will be there as long as wind projects are.

 

Thousands of miles of underground cable, control and matrix centers, and then the taps into the grip all had to be built *out here*.

 

Mind you, the winds are more dependable and run higher speeds and *hotter* on the West End of Gorge. Why weren't the wind farms put there?

 

NIMBY.. Not In My Back Yard! "How dare you fuck up MY view from my yuppo-home with something so unsightly as a white WINDMILL FARM!!!?

 

"EnviroSnobs" I have an intense dislike for. Folks who for whatever reason will decry use of whatever the cause of the month is for the "little people", but still continue in a lifestyle that footprints larger than my whole town..

 

Anyway, with gadgets come tooling up for building them. Electronics and related industry very hard on earth when one considers the amount of rare materials and even base metals to build everything that touchs project. Look at the enviromental impact of used and then discarded manufactured electronic goods, and their final costs.

 

Lotta shit to consider when we *want* Green, but consider how much things in real world cost. Until there is a demand for green energy, grener products, and recycling by the masses, very little will be done.

 

I suggest reading up on Adam Smith and see what it may take to revolutionize the world.

 

Not against "greening" up Industry overall, but know many of the allied costs will never be bourne by anyone but the ratepayers.. Investors, those controlling flows of money are really happy right where things are at.

 

Anyway, another screed in which I apologize for length.

 

kFL