Elmerfudd
Newbie
Karma: +2/-4
Posts: 11
|
 |
« on: March 03, 2008, 07:52:39 PM » |
|
Since it is not popular to report on things that go against the widespread belief that man causes climate change, this open letter to the UN Secretary General from 100 climate scientists went largely unreported. It boldly states that man made global warming is at best bunk, and at worst, a deliberate deception by the UN . http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
Dec. 13, 2007
His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, N.Y.
Dear Mr. Secretary-General,
Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPC C) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPC , C's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.
The IPC C Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPC C reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPC C contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.
Contrary to the impression left by the IPC C Summary reports:
z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
z Leading scientists, including some senior IPC C representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPC C working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPC C assessment reports are already materially outdated.
The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.
The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.
Yours faithfully,By following the link you will see another link to the signatories, quite an impressive bunch. Notice the underlined part....this is a DELIBERATE deception by the UN.  "Broad Consensus" my butt....... |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 04, 2008, 06:25:17 AM by Elmerfudd »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Biker Dude
A TRUE Liberal!
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +144/-112
Posts: 1,748
Live to Ride, Ride to Live
|
|
« Reply #1 on: March 04, 2008, 05:34:01 AM » |
|
Again with the 'Church of Gore' BS. I am guessing that the forums you post on elsewhere must be pretty different than IAP...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 \\'I`m your Huckleberry\\' |
|
|
Elmerfudd
Newbie
Karma: +2/-4
Posts: 11
|
|
« Reply #2 on: March 04, 2008, 06:23:48 AM » |
|
Again with the 'Church of Gore' BS. I am guessing that the forums you post on elsewhere must be pretty different than IAP...
I use the term to describe the almost religion-like adherence to the doctrine that man has caused climate change and man can stop it. Only in a religion would masses of people ignore facts and blindly follow an unsupported idea. However, so as not to offend any such followers, I shall edit it out........  Oh, and Yes, other place I post are often quite different. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 04, 2008, 06:26:20 AM by Elmerfudd »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Biker Dude
A TRUE Liberal!
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +144/-112
Posts: 1,748
Live to Ride, Ride to Live
|
|
« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2008, 09:38:04 AM » |
|
It takes more than just words to offend me. I simply find that line to be trite and well worn is all.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\'I`m your Huckleberry\\'
|
|
|
Major Zee Lee
Forum cat lover
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +64/-169
Posts: 565
Kooks not allowed in (Secret meeting is next door)
|
|
« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2008, 03:41:40 PM » |
|
Yawn. Wish I had the list of the "100 climate scientists", to check wether they are so or not... Anyway, even if they are, they should know better: in order to debunk the scientific consensus on climate change, the thing to do is to research, publish, and have others research and achieve the same results, all of them effectively debunking the current consensus. They should know that it's not a matter of sending whatever amount of letters to the UN...  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Do not take life too seriously; nobody lives to tell.
|
|
|
yilmaz101
Full Member
Karma: +8/-65
Posts: 248
|
|
« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2008, 03:52:24 PM » |
|
Even if the whole man induced climate change is a scientific hoax it will possibly go down in history as one of the most beneficial hoaxes of all times. It does not require a graduate degree in environmental sciences to see that our way of life is harmful to our environment in the long run. The concept of sustainability requires that our impact on the general environment is neutral, the whole discussion about climate change and how to alliviate it centers on reducing or eliminating our impact on the environment. And by the way that is a GOOD thing. Especailly if it will mean that our offsprings, and their offsprings will be able to breathe as clean an air as we do.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Forevers
Newbie
Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 2
|
|
« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2008, 11:52:33 PM » |
|
The Globe is warming up; there is no doubt about that and humans are the main cause, we should act now.
Now what people are arguing about is the methods to lighten the influnce of warming.
Carbon Tax in Canada? Carbon Trading in EU? Cap-and-Auction in America next year?
Or above methods need to be used together?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Biker Dude
A TRUE Liberal!
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +144/-112
Posts: 1,748
Live to Ride, Ride to Live
|
|
« Reply #7 on: March 07, 2008, 04:27:36 AM » |
|
The Globe is warming up; there is no doubt about that and humans are the main cause, we should act now.
Now what people are arguing about is the methods to lighten the influnce of warming.
Carbon Tax in Canada? Carbon Trading in EU? Cap-and-Auction in America next year?
Or above methods need to be used together?
I would very much like for you to prove this statement please. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\'I`m your Huckleberry\\'
|
|
|
Elmerfudd
Newbie
Karma: +2/-4
Posts: 11
|
|
« Reply #8 on: March 07, 2008, 05:07:11 PM » |
|
Even if the whole man induced climate change is a scientific hoax it will possibly go down in history as one of the most beneficial hoaxes of all times. It does not require a graduate degree in environmental sciences to see that our way of life is harmful to our environment in the long run. The concept of sustainability requires that our impact on the general environment is neutral, the whole discussion about climate change and how to alliviate it centers on reducing or eliminating our impact on the environment. And by the way that is a GOOD thing. Especailly if it will mean that our offsprings, and their offsprings will be able to breathe as clean an air as we do.
Can't argue with that. If the GW hoax helps push clean energy then good. Plenty of REAL pollutants that should be reduced. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Forevers
Newbie
Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 2
|
|
« Reply #9 on: March 10, 2008, 01:24:58 AM » |
|
Woods Hole Institute: Greenhouse Skeptics - The Woods Hole Research Center Or how about: American Association for the Advancement of Science http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/..._statement.pdfAmerican Meteorological Soeciety: Climate Change Research: Issues for the Atmospheric and Related Sciences Adopted by the AMS Council 9 February 2003 NOAA: NCDC: Global Warming American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospherice Sciences http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.htmlAustralian Meteorological And Oceanographic Society http://www.amos.org.au/statementCC.htm I could go on and on. These are real sources. Not conservative opinion pieces on bullshit internet blogs |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Fredledingue
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +28/-29
Posts: 751
|
|
« Reply #10 on: March 14, 2008, 02:58:46 PM » |
|
One thing that the greenhouse skeptics don't see is that the curb of CO2 and the curb in global warming and the curb in industrial developement are parrallel since the 18th century.
So the change in climate is still in the range of natural fluctuations? I hope so, because if not we would be dead or living under post-apocalyptical conditions.
Does that proove that humans have nothing to do with climate changes? NO.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 Dr. Zoidberg is jewish (and an important AIPAC donator!)  |
|
|
Wendell Phillips
Newbie
Karma: +0/-1
Posts: 1
|
|
« Reply #11 on: March 16, 2008, 05:51:55 AM » |
|
Global warming is not bunk; it is a fact. The overwhelming scientific evidence indicates that global warming is occurring at an accelerated rate caused by hydrocarbon emissions into the atmosphere, and that anthropogenic activity is a significant contributing factor. It is time that people stop playing politics and face up to the problem. See "The cold truth about climate change" by Joseph Romm, Salon.com (February 27, 2008) at http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/ |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Fredledingue
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +28/-29
Posts: 751
|
|
« Reply #12 on: March 17, 2008, 01:22:15 PM » |
|
Skeptics says that the global warming could be caused by natural reasons.
Yes, but if it wasn't and if natural causes started to kick in?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Dr. Zoidberg is jewish (and an important AIPAC donator!) |
|
|
cauboi
Full Member
Karma: +6/-9
Posts: 118
|
|
« Reply #13 on: April 07, 2008, 03:30:58 PM » |
|
There is no doubt, there is evidence of some impact the human footprint has on our planet, but humanity cannot destroy Mother Nature, maybe Mother Nature can destroy us, but not viceversa.
Even if all the mankind disappeared overnight, like magic, you know what will happen with Planet Earth?
In about 100 years from now, life will flourish again, untamed and fresh, like millions years ago, when there were no diseased creatures roaming around (a.k.a. humanoids).
That time, the only intelligent life form on Earth, were the aliens coming here on vacation to smell the beauty of wild flowers and eat crunchy roasted wild hog, all 100% organic, not genetically engineered.
The only genetically modified creatures were the humanoids, which the aliens used them for some freaky experiments, until something went very wrong and they had to abandon everything behind, because they got so shit scared of what they've done.
...So we can say that us, humans, are some experimental monsters, because that's true, we are the only ones not in sync with Mother Nature, everything we do is against it.
So what I'm saying is: go ahead, use more carbon, use all the resources you have, until one day we will become extinct. It seems that Apocalypse is the only way to go for reaching a new Genesis on Earth.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
SoulWrangler
Newbie
Karma: +2/-5
Posts: 15
|
|
« Reply #14 on: May 09, 2008, 06:36:36 AM » |
|
Lulz, I am going to have to agree with the because of my own views on the issue, those being that there is not a correlation and that the supplied data is not adequate to make such a distinction. Im wondering if anyone knows about the case in the british court with the Inconvenient Truth being found as having 9 material errors of large respects, and its being banned from public schools as political indoctrination. * The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
Full transcript of the case at the bottom of the page. Actually, this reminds me of a debate I had with a teacher of mine who thought there was global warming. He held the scientists who opposed his views in one respect, and one respect only, saying they were all payed off by large corporations or being forced to talk that way by the government. http://newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
