[Newsbot]

Title: Climate Warming Consensus Exposed As Fraud
Topic: Environment
Written By: Milton
Date: Friday, December 26 at 10:36
More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008

  
Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernemnt
al Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
read more

[Ed Deak]

Who is paying for this "study"?

Whenever there are court cases etc. debates, there also always are "scientific" opinions and testimonials backing both sides.

Anybody who believes that the incredible and growing amount of pollution pushed into the atmosphere is not causing any damage is either nuts, or paid off crook.

Ed Deak.

[coyoteman]

They managed to get 650 wingnut scientists in one place at one time?

What fuggin' surprise is there here?

Zip. Zero. Nada.

Show me the beef. Give me the details: sponsoring organizations, affiliations etc,

Quote:

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate.

Which, in this context, sounds pretty much like saying, "God rules." What? Man and his works is not a significant part of "nature", on this planet?

The consensus is, certainly of the mainstream global scientific communty, within the UN or not, (which is mostly an instrument of US Empire power), that global warming is an apparent and quantifiable reality, and that in each instance of accumulating causal evidence, we are led back to the activities of humans, their burgeoning populations and economic activity. (Which does not mean that there is complete unanimity of agreement, of course. It would be strange were it otherwise.)

And does this mean that it is ONLY humans that contribute to a global warming tendency?

No. There are always competing natural trends in the direction of warming and cooling at work on the planet, and remove the influence of man and his activity, the dominate "natural" trend is toward cooling in fact. But we cannot, in the current circumstances, because of its growing and overwhelming influence, and still increasing human numbers and scale of economic induced impact on the planet, ignore this influence which is proving capable at overwhelming the "natural" global cooling influences.

Man and his influences are an inseparable part of "Nature" on the planet. We are, in fact, a "significant" dynamic currently "within" Nature.

The same folks as are Holocaust Deniers, are by and large the same folks who here are Global Warming Deniers, even though, in our changing summers, melting icecaps, and "generally" less severe winters and rising sea levels, it is apparent even to the naked eye of most of us-, at least those of us who have lived relatively long, with no interest in defending the rapacious, greed driven destructive power of out of control capitalism.

Go tend to your goddamn stockmarkets, which are falling apart and likewise factor in global warming, you wingnut deniers and defenders of Ponzi Capitalism, within which needs framework you would attempt to stuff objective, non-market driven science. Only we are all increasingly onto you and your non-science ideological bullshit.

[Marcarc]

I always find it odd to see these stories pop up at Vive, somebody, or somebodies seem to think that climate change is akin to global investor rights as a chief threat. Since Canada is nowhere near addressing climate change and has essentially given up on it, it's odd to see this as even a concern.
However, you can go look at the funding of many of these scientists, its no surprise that most of them are american. It's also interesting that one bigwig woman scientist says "now that I'm no longer funded...." she can 'speak the truth', which is that 'she has reservations'. No scientist has ever said that global warming was as set in stone as theories of evolution or that matter exists. But keep in mind that most of those scientists are funded by INDUSTRY, which means they are still funded-just differently. So again, I'm still yet to hear what exactly these UN scientists are being driven by. Is there a multi billion dollar solar and wind energy consortium that is propping them up to 'scare' us into being environmentally benign? There's no doubt that scientists can get into a set framework, but this isn't one. Media is owned by the same guys doing the polluting, its not like dissent wouldn't be favoured. In fact its taken a couple of years for the oil industry to fund its own 'specious science' to get some literature built up expressing doubts-that's why it hasn't been heard about for a year or so. But now they poke little holes and express doubts about tiny sections of the studies and claim that the whole thing is bogus.

[RickW]

Andrew Weaver:
http://www.worldchanging.com/local/cana ... 06342.html

[Milton]

I work outside all winter long and I tell you that the winter like weather in Alberta was not warmer or shorter in duration during the last two years than what would normally be expected.

What has the holocaust got to do with this?

Try reading the article that I linked to instead of going on about who is funding who, unless you actually have evidence of who is funding who. If you want to argue then argue against the evidence that is presented which refutes the global warming / carbon dioxide theory. You know how to argue against evidence don't you? You present evidence which refutes that which is claimed to be valid evidence, you don't run off at the mouth using the current newspeak as verified evidence.

Pollution is not our friend and I am in favor of regenerative energy sources.

Consider what Peter Taylor has to say
http://www.bbc5.tv/news/story/peter-taylor-climate-change
then respond to what he actually says.
http://www.bbc5.tv/news/story/peter-taylor-climate-change

[RickW]

Or you could save a lot of space, and just post links to anything Tim Ball has to say:
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272

[Milton]

Or you could respond to the articles and videos that I posted. You can make all the brownie points with the global warming priests you want but don't pretend to be anything other than one of the flock.

[RickW]

And likewise, I'm sure:
http://communications.uvic.ca/edge/weaver.html

It's pure coincidence I am sure, that, as the economic situation in the United States continues to get worse, the more people come forward to "debunk" man-made global warming.........

[Milton]

What, prey tell, does global warming have to do with economic conditions in the US of A?
Did global warming cause the central bankers to curtail the production of money from thin air to be loaned for investments which were not viable ie derivatives?
Did global warming cause corporations to move their factories to China and India and Mexico and the Philipines etc, thus causing the income of working class Americans to fall?

The real question to be answered is, are human activities a major cause of the production of green house gasses and are green house gasses the major cause of global warming (assuming that global warming is still happening and that it is something other than a climate cycle)?

[RickW]

Simple realtonship really: As people lose their sources of income, they look around for something or someone to blame. Environmental uncertainty is an easy target, considering that most of our incomes come from some form of pollution or other.............

[Ed Deak]

We had properties in the Cariboo area of central BC since 1970 and moved here permanently in 1979. In the early years we used to have -40, or 45C for days and weeks, and the coldest we had in this area was an official -53C in 1984.

In 1994 and '95 we had a huge tent caterpillar invasion that stripped all the deciduous trees of their leaves. They were covering the roads, the sides of buildings and hanging from the trees by the billions. Then in '95 we had -40C for a few days and all the worms disappeared, because the cold killed their eggs, some 400 from each female.

We had -37 for a day, or so in '92, and then -38 at our house a few days ago, when we had a cold spell, but some of our neighbours registered down to -42. But nothing like such temperatures for many years.

Now, because it takes -40C, for a few days, to kill the bug eggs, millions of acres of our pine forests are dead, or dying, killed by the pine beetles, now mutating and their cousins going after the fir and spruce. But there's no cold to do the job.

We only had a few pines on our land, but when we're driving on the roads, we can see huge areas of dead trees, millions of the small ones being chipped up for pulp and other fuels. BC's forest industry, helped along with irresponsible government policies, about the same bunch of nuts that reign in Alberta and Ottawa, our forest industry, once the most important part of the province, is being killed by tiny bugs and no frost to kill them.

My friends in Europe write that they had no frost, or snow this year yet. The same applies all over the world. Just a few average degrees that make all the difference.

As I wrote earlier, anybody who denies global warming, or that the incredible pollution spewed into the air has no harmful effects, with all the evidence all around us, is either a nutcase, often caused by idiotic religious or ideological beliefs, or is paid off.

When somebody starts denying facts, it is good fun to ask what religion, or ideology they subscribe to and what party they're voting for? The answers are always the same.

As they say: "Faith conquers all !" Yes, especially logical thought.

Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.

[Marcarc]

Like I said, NOBODY here is an environmental specialist, and even most of those scientists pointed out at the link above in the US Senate issue are not environmental weather specialists. Many were physicists, there were even some geologists. So that is not the issue, the issue is why IS this an issue here at Vive? What does it have to do with ANYTHING that Vive is about? There's lots of scientific arguments going on about the big bang theory as well as UFO's, but I really haven't seen them pop up here.

What is most important is what canadians can do about climate change, which is pretty established. Today here in southern ontario it's 12 degrees and pouring rain. The coldest days of the past three years have all been in November.

That of course has little to do with global warming. People can 'pick a side' with either the 'pro' or 'con' side and find evidence of their position. Some find the reams of evidence more conclusive, while some will argue forever about the 'hockey stick' theory and find it as proof that there is nothing to the issue at all. In the end, what matters is the politics, IF you believe there is no global warming then pollution is just great, and there is no reason to do ANYTHING about environmental problems. If you think it does, then it means you are more likely to be environmentally aware-otherwise you're just bored and this is the 'conspiracy du jour'. If nothing else (and I've looked into most of the evidence from both sides and there IS lots else), it is symbolic of a new way of looking at the world and the environment-and that's a GOOD thing. Other than that, its just a meaningless argument to have on a bored day.

[Milton]

I haven't found any evidence to indicate that there is a global warming trend caused by carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gasses produced by mankind taking place and I do not think that pollution is great or something that we should put up with or turn our backs on.
What I am saying is that the global warming fanatics have refused to consider sun cycles, in fact they flat out deny that the sun has anything to do with global warming. This kind of faith based approach to scientific research ought naught to be tolerated by an educated populace but it is. You do know that the global warming priests are preaching sermons on the evil of carbon dioxide, do you not? You do understand that the ways that have been proposed to deal with global warming enemy #1 are incredibly slothful and utterly stupid do you not?
It is true that there are variations in temperatures from place to place and year to year. It is also true that there is a correlation between sunspot activity and temperatures on Earth. It is also true that a sunspot cycle ended about one year ago and that temperatures have declined globally since then. It is also true that other factors such as volcanos have an effect on planetary temperatures. So why do the global warming fanatics focus solely on carbon dioxide? Wny do those who claim to have a concern about pollution think that dealing solely with carbon dioxide will take care of all our problems.
The obvious way to take care of carbon dioxide is to increase the number of trees on the planet, trees break carbon dioxide down into carbon and oxygen.
Another way is to base our economies on hydrogen and regenerative energy sources rather than hydrocarbons. The real problem we have as a society is understanding that the old ways just won't do anymore.Economic changes must be made, our system must be predicated on the idea that everyone on the planet must have access to a bare maximum of the resources necessary to ensure a healthy successful life.

[Marcarc]

The above states my confusion, since it is the solutions presented in the last two paragraphs above that are the clarion call of the 'carbon priests' who are so derided in the rest of the posting. That's like calling the Harper conservatives the ultimate evil all while recommending the exact same policies they are. So its a weird fixation.

However, just because an individual can't find evidence-there is lots available, says more about the individual than the evidence. The UN panel and computer models incorporated sunspots, as well as variant temperatures and temperature cycles. Thirty year satellite records of sunspot activity have shown no great change. All that is elementary. You can watch the film "Dimming of the Sun" and see there are other factors as well, an irony in that the planet is partially being protected from increased global temperatures from the smog from developing nations. New reports from the UN have stated that because of the economic slowdown, less pollution will be coming from China and India, which well mean that the 'best case scenario' presented by climate models won't be accurate for much longer.

As for temperatures, as any scientist knows, ANYTHING can potentially happen. Very little is understood about the sun's activities, and at any time a radical change can have disastrous effects. Even the sunspot cycle was expanded last year because scientists noticed it wasn't following its usual average pattern. However, I've seen no evidence that the sun was not considered, that's a ludicrous notion. Sunspot activity though is not responsible for increased temperature, that 1991 paper was debunked in 1991, although its still cited in the literature of the "Frontier Center", the main 'think tank' funded by the oil industry.

But again, if you are on strike with a local union with the same demands, why pick a fight about differences of opinion? For public policy, the above is making the same demands as the 'carbon priests'- renewable energy. The only people saying to NOT worry about global warming are oil companies and their investors. So don't sweat the small stuff, if you have the same policy aims, then arguing for the theories of those who are least likely to follow your policy suggestions is a weird way of doing lobbying.