Tracking the next pandemic: Avian Flu Talk |
What is Going On Around The Melting Polar Cap? |
Post Reply |
Author | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mary008
V.I.P. Member Joined: June 22 2009 Status: Offline Points: 5769 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: November 15 2009 at 10:48am |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.
Polar Ice Cap melt
So... what's going on... in that area over there... where it seems to be melting a lot?
A lot is going on...around the Polar Ice Cap
.................................................................
Could this all have anything to do with it Melting?
Petroleum exploration in the Arctic
The Beaufort Sea is also the location of what are believed to be significant petroleum reserves beneath the seabed, a continuation of proven reserves in the nearby Mackenzie River and North Slope.[1] The Beaufort Sea was first explored in the 1960s and the Amauligak Project of 1986 began operating the first functioning oil platform. Canada
Extensive drilling was done in the Canadian Arctic during the 1970s and 1980s by such companies as Panarctic Oils Ltd., Petro Canada and Dome Petroleum. After 176 wells were drilled at billions of dollars of cost, approximately 1.9 billion barrels (300×10^6 m3) of oil and 19.8 trillion cubic feet (560×10^9 m3) of natural gas were found. These discoveries were insufficient to justify development, and all the wells which were drilled were plugged and abandoned. Drilling in the Canadian Arctic turned out to be expensive and dangerous. The geology of the Canadian Arctic turned out to be far more complex than oil-producing regions like the Gulf of Mexico. It was discovered to be gas prone rather than oil prone (i.e. most of the oil had been transformed into natural gas by geological processes), and most of the reservoirs had been fractured by tectonic activity, allowing most of the petroleum which might at one time have been present to leak out.[4] Russia In June 2007, a group of Russian geologists returned from a six-week voyage on a nuclear icebreaker. They had travelled to the Lomonosov ridge, an underwater shelf in Russia's remote and inhospitable eastern Arctic Ocean. According to Russia's media, the geologists returned with the "sensational news" that the Lomonosov ridge was linked to Russian Federation territory, boosting Russia's claim over the oil-and-gas rich triangle. The territory contained 10bn tonnes of gas and oil deposits, the scientists said.[5] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
endman
V.I.P. Member Joined: February 16 2006 Status: Offline Points: 1232 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The answer is Al Gore
But seriously who cares you cannot stop it now if it’s due to green house gases or normal earth cycles, Earth orbit is incline (hat why we have seasons) I don’t know how many degrees and geographical north pole wobbles and the angle is changing that so if earth angle to the sun now is getting smaller then the sun rays are striking the earth at more direct angle and heating the earth more so the ice is melting at the poles. Earth had many ice ages and many heat waves do to volcanoes, comets, asteroids here is another one human made if you believe in it |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mary008
V.I.P. Member Joined: June 22 2009 Status: Offline Points: 5769 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hi...It would be good to cut down on air pollution... and get away from tossing our dollars at mid east oil... anyone elses oil... and come up with some new ideas so future generations will enjoy clean air and water... I do agree that some of it is just nature taking it's course.
but hopefully we won't add to it happening any faster. So hard to get the big corps on board.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
endman
V.I.P. Member Joined: February 16 2006 Status: Offline Points: 1232 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I don’t believe in big corps if you want to change the world you need green revolution and dedicated men to preach in every corner of the world, on how to use earth resources more efficiently, how to conserve and preserve equisetums, how to grow biodivers crops
I think the world needs population control if we want to live in the better society in the future. Most of the world population growth is coming from countries that cannot feed themselves now, that why we need world policy of one or two children per family not green house gases policy population policy less people less problems and wars more land for animals. People stop making babies you can’t afford them anyway. I think some of the population control measures have been implemented already like HIV and H1N1 virus. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Technologist
Admin Group Joined: May 05 2009 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 1192 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OK here's a Question:
If a hundred trillion pounds of Floating iceberg were to melt in the ocean. Would it raise the oceans sea level? Would it stay the same? Would the sea level drop? I'm not giving the answer but I would like to know who can answer the question and why would you come up with that answer? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nc_girl
V.I.P. Member Joined: January 19 2006 Location: NC Status: Offline Points: 3968 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I'll bite. I say it will stay the same or go down. I base my answer on how ice cubes behave in a glass of water. When they melt, I see appreciable rise or fall in the level of the water in my glass, but then I'm drinking it the whole time. hehehe I believe the liquid form would take up less room that the solid form being that the solid is more dense.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mahshadin
Admin Group Joined: January 26 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3882 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." G Orwell
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mary008
V.I.P. Member Joined: June 22 2009 Status: Offline Points: 5769 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If it is nature.... it's significantly different these days... There is a lot going on in that area, people were unaware of the blasting up there.
Drilling in the Canadian Arctic turned out to be expensive and dangerous...
this fracting has been known to cause quakes... 176 wells.... at a cost of Billions.
Extensive drilling was done in the Canadian Arctic during the 1970s and 1980s by such companies as Panarctic Oils Ltd., Petro Canada and Dome Petroleum.
...discoveries were insufficient to justify development... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr.Who
Adviser Group Joined: January 08 2009 Status: Offline Points: 392 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Answer: a lot is going on with the ice caps.
One thing that is happening is that snowfall is increasing in the center of the area in the photos so the snow is deeper inland and there is less further out. Another thing that is happening is that there is more ice in other areas of the planet. Another thing that is happening is that global temperatures have been going DOWN for a little over ten years now, including the years that your pictures cover. So one thing we can say is that global warming is not causing the ice to melt. In fact some of the ice melts every summer and is replaced by more every winter. But if the snow is falling further north or in other parts of the globe it wont be replacing the ice where we see it receeding. The last thing we can say is that scientist who give up these nifty pics and graphs and things and let (or hope) people misinterpret them are not being completely honest. But now we know that the few scientists at the core of the fiasco are lying to us. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4=laro
Valued Member Joined: April 18 2007 Status: Offline Points: 731 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You are all so silly, but dont send this solution to WDC.
It can easily be solved, all we need is an ICE CAP AND POLAR TAX. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sjf53
Valued Member Joined: April 06 2008 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 400 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SUPPRESSING SCIENCE: IS CLIMATEGATE WORLD'S BIGGEST HOAX?On the eve of next week's Copenhagen climate summit, the evidence couldn't be more embarrassing for proponents of global warming, says the Calgary Herald. Leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU), one of the world's leading climate change research centers, indicate that prominent scientists cooked the books to make the case for man-made global warming. Misconduct at an institute as respected and influential as Hadley -- including the manipulation and deletion of data and deliberate attempts to suppress peer-reviewed papers skeptical of global warming, as the e-mails indicate -- would undermine the very basis of an issue that is driving much of the world agenda. Global warming, endorsed by the national science academies of every major industrialized nation, would not only be flawed science, it would be the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the world, says the Herald. The e-mails indicate an agenda-driven willingness among a group of like-minded scientists to influence what research gets published:
If he wasn't kidding, Jones's e-mail, and others like it, are distressing, says the Herald. On Tuesday, Jones announced his resignation while the school investigates the e-mails that indicate scientific and professional misconduct have been perpetrated by Jones and others. Even those who accept the need to act on the theory of man-made global warming can't deny that all science should be allowed to speak for itself. Nothing should be suppressed, says the Herald. As U.S. climatologist and global warming skeptic Roy Spencer notes: "Year after year, the evidence keeps mounting that most climate research now being funded is for the purpose of supporting IPCC politics, not to find out how nature works. The 'data spin' is increasingly difficult to ignore or to explain away as just sloppy science." Source: Editorial, "Suppressing science: Is Climategate world's biggest hoax?" Calgary Herald, December 3, 2009. For text: http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Suppressing+science/2297620/story.html For more on Global Warming: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sjf53
Valued Member Joined: April 06 2008 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 400 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TelegraphUK
CLIMATE CHANGE: THIS IS THE WORST SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL OF OUR GENERATIONThe reason why there has been an expression of total shock and dismay over the leaked University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails is that the senders and recipients of the mails constitute a cast list of scientific elite. They are the authors of global temperature record that is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and governments rely -- not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it, says author Christopher Booker. There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world, say Booker:
Last week, the former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skullduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age, say the Booker. Source: Christopher Booker, "Climate Change: This is the Worst Scientific Scandal of Our Generation," The Telegraph, November 28, 2009. For text: For more on Global Warming: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sjf53
Valued Member Joined: April 06 2008 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 400 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Founder of the Weather Channel and 30,000 Other Scientists Wanting to Sue
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sjf53
Valued Member Joined: April 06 2008 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 400 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 Days of ClimateGate and Network News Programs Are Still Ignoring the Scandal>
It's been nearly two weeks since a scandal shook many people's faith in the scientists behind global warming alarmism. The scandal forced the University of East Anglia (UK) to divulge that it threw away raw temperature data and prompted the temporary resignation of Phil Jones of the university's Climate Research Unit. Despite that resignation and calls by a U.S. senator to investigate the matter, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programming has remained silent - not mentioning a word about the scandal since it broke on Nov. 20, even as world leaders including President Barack Obama prepare to meet in Copenhagen, Denmark next week to promote a pact to reduce greenhouse gases. MRC's President Brent Bozell called the networks' silence a "cover-up" Dec. 2. Other news outlets, including The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and Associated Press have deemed ClimateGate worthy of reporting, but the networks were too busy reporting on celebrity car accidents and the killer whale that ate a great white shark. Instead of airing a broadcast news segment that might inform the public about the science scandal, both ABC and CBS relegated the story to their Web sites. There was one mention of the scandal on ABC's Sunday talk show: "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." The ClimateGate scandal, as it is being called, has the hallmarks of a major news story: private emails purporting to show unethical or illegal behavior supplied by a hacker or whistleblower, high profile scientists like James Hansen and Michael Mann, and a potential conspiracy to distort science for political gain. But the networks haven't bothered with the story. Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist and BMI adviser, said Nov. 20 of the leaked e-mails and documents: "This isn't a smoking gun, it's a mushroom cloud." White House press secretary Robert Gibbs responded to a question about ClimateGate by insisting that "global warming is happening" and that for most people it isn't really a question anymore. That is the same message viewers get from the network news about climate change. An examination of morning and evening news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC since Nov. 20 yielded zero mentions of the scandal, even in the Nov. 25 reports about Obama going to Copenhagen to discuss the need for emissions reductions. But during the same time period, the networks reported on pro-golfer Tiger Woods' "minor" car accident at least 37 times. They also found time to report on an orphaned Moose and the meal selection at the president's State Dinner. ClimateGate began after someone (hacker or whistleblower) attacked servers of University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) and made thousands of e-mails and documents public. Those e-mails appear to show a conspiracy to falsify temperature data, a willingness to destroy information rather than release it under Freedom of Information (FOI) law and the intimidation of publications willing to publish skeptical articles. CRU's director Phil Jones admitted real CRU e-mails had been stolen when he told New Zealand's Investigate magazine, "It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails." Others argue a whistleblower was responsible for the breach. One of those alleged e-mails was from Jones to Michael Mann (famous for his hockey stick graph of global warming) and two others appeared to indicate manipulation of scientific data.
Jones, who contributed to a chapter of the U.N.'s IPCC report, claims the term "trick" was used "colloquially as in a clever thing to do." Myron Ebell, Director of Global Warming Policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), supplied his own view of what Jones and Mann meant by hiding the decline. Ebell wrote in the National Post: "What is the clever method that Prof. Jones learned from Prof. Mann? I think he is referring to the way Prof. Mann constructed his celebrated hockey stick graph. His proxy records showed flat temperatures for the past 1,000 years, including the past century. But everyone knows that temperatures have gone up rapidly in the past few decades ... So what Prof. Mann did was splice the last few decades of surface temperature records onto his proxy record. Voila! - the hockey stick." The alleged e-mails were enough to force Jones' temporary resignation. On Dec. 1, Associated Press reported that Jones is "stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change." Other leaked e-mails asked people to delete e-mails and one said that if information was requested using FOI, it would be deleted rather than turned over: Alleged e-mail from Jones to Mann Feb. 2, 2005:
In Britain, it is a crime to delete information requested under FOI. You can read the Business & Media Institute's entire assessment of the ClimateGate scandal and the networks' refusal to report it on the BMI Web site. —Julia A. Seymour is an assistant editor for the Business & Media Institute. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sjf53
Valued Member Joined: April 06 2008 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 400 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wall Street Journal
How to Forge a ConsensusThe impression left by the Climategate emails is that the global warming game has been rigged from the start.
The climatologists at the center of last week's leaked-email and document scandal have taken the line that it is all much ado about nothing. Yes, the wording of the some of their messages was unfortunate, but they insist this in no way undermines the underlying science, which is as certain as ever. "What they've done is search through stolen personal emails—confidential between colleagues who often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world," Penn State's Michael Mann told Reuters Wednesday. Mr. Mann added that this has made "something innocent into something nefarious." Phil Jones, Director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, from which the emails were lifted, is singing from the same climate hymnal. "My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues," he said this week. We don't doubt that Mr. Jones would have phrased his emails differently if he expected them to end up in the newspaper. His May 2008 email to Mr. Mann regarding the U.N.'s Fourth Assessment Report: "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?" does not "read well," it's true. (Mr. Mann has said he didn't delete any such emails.) But the furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or even whether climatologists are nice people in private. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at in the first place, and how even now a single view is being enforced. In short, the impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start. According to this privileged group, only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the "peer-review" process, can be relied on to critique the science. And sure enough, any challenges that critics have lobbed at climatologists from outside this clique are routinely dismissed and disparaged. This past September, Mr. Mann told a New York Times reporter in one of the leaked emails that: "Those such as [Stephen] McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted." Mr. McIntyre is a retired Canadian businessman who fact-checks the findings of climate scientists and often publishes the mistakes he finds—including some in Mr. Mann's work—on his Web site, Climateaudit.org. He holds the rare distinction of having forced Mr. Mann to publish a correction to one of his more-famous papers. As anonymous reviewers of choice for certain journals, Mr. Mann & Co. had considerable power to enforce the consensus, but it was not absolute, as they discovered in 2003. Mr. Mann noted to several colleagues in an email from March 2003, when the journal "Climate Research" published a paper not to Mr. Mann's liking, that "This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature'. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal!" The scare quotes around "peer-reviewed literature," by the way, are Mr. Mann's. He went on in the email to suggest that the journal itself be blackballed: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board." In other words, keep dissent out of the respected journals. When that fails, re-define what constitutes a respected journal to exclude any that publish inconvenient views. It's easy to manufacture a scientific consensus when you get to decide what counts as science. The response to this among the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science we've got. The proof for this is circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited—in that same peer-reviewed literature. Even so, by rigging the rules, they've made it impossible to know how good it really is. And then, one is left to wonder why they felt the need to rig the game in the first place, if their science is as robust as they claim. If there's an innocent explanation for that, we'd love to hear it.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sjf53
Valued Member Joined: April 06 2008 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 400 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
An Obama science policy flashback from March 2009:
Words, just words. Remember.....Watch what he does; Not what he says. Document-dump-a-palooza — plus an Obama/sound science flashback; Update: Official White House position on ClimateGate: So what?By Michelle Malkin • November 30, 2009 02:21 PM
“Document dump” is the operative word of the month, isn’t it? We had another holiday weekend document dump of visitor logs from the White House, which included these trips:
Holdren, of course, is the population control freak/global warming zealout/science czar — who, as I noted last week, is smack dab in the middle of the ClimateGate scandal. Speaking of which, the research institution at the center of ClimateGate admitted its own document dump over the weekend:
And to round out document-dump-a-palooza, here’s the latest on the massive ACORN docdump. Viva transparency! *** More: *Paul Mirengoff at Power Line: The Obama-Holder Justice Department turns a blind eye to ACORN . More here. Well now: ACORN and NBC collaborated together on an undercover sting project. See my “ACORN Watch: A ’sting’-ing indictment of media hypocrisy” for more on NBC hypocrisy and the old media protection racket. *There is now a searchable ClimateGate database here. *White House press secretary Robert Gibbs — echoing data destruction expert/energy czar Carol Browner — says ClimateGate has no bearing on Obama’s push for massive global warming taxes/intervention. The science is “settled.” Yeah, who cares about the global warming scandal of the century? An Obama science policy flashback from March 2009:
Words, just words. *** The Atlantic’s Clive Crook blasts ClimateGate corruption:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sjf53
Valued Member Joined: April 06 2008 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 400 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Media Missing the Plot on ‘Climate Gate’: It’s the Fraud, Stupid!by Christopher C. HornerTo the credit of the New York Times, Associated Press and Washington Post — reliable outlets for promoting global warming alarmism, protecting those who craft it and marginalizing those who point out its weaknesses and excesses — they all ran stories in the past 48 hours addressing the documents somehow obtained from the computers of a UK university serving as the warming movement and industry’s Mother Ship. My great surprise is even greater because these outlets have demonstrated a pattern of only giving ink to embarrassing controversies after a week or so, once it appears that damage control is needed and the alarmists have gotten their story straight. I documented this pattern in a book published one year ago this month, subtly titled “Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed.” The title says it all, including all that surely seems to have been affirmed by the documents posted, by “anonymous” on a Russian server and otherwise covering his tracks. Since this affirms, not “reveals”, the scandal that so many have been explaining is the global warming industry, it also raises the issue of how can each of these media outlets still miss the plot? Well, they are doing so in a fashion so uniform, and in the face of such outrageous exposition of the scandal that is unfolding, that I conclude it is nonetheless yet another exercise in damage-control. The emails, let alone the data still being combed over by the pointy-heads, plainly affirm everything I wrote, in detail, about the scams being run by the booming industry of Big Academia and Big Science suckling at the teat of the “global warming” panic they are also fostering.
I was by no means without company, but I did name and go into detail about all of the stars of this alleged correspondence, and how they are engaging in everything these documents appear to confirm. None of them lawyered up to challenge what I wrote. I suspect, however, that each and every one has retained counsel in the past few days, and not because they plan on suing anyone. They — rightly in my opinion — fear legal consequence as a result of what has been revealed. And not for writing nasty emails about people who disagree with them. Yet the media have defined the story down, focusing on sideshow issues such as conspiring or hateful commentary about those who cause problems for the authors. Think of the wisdom of that approach: whose emails do not somewhere include such things? Surely this will also be proved with more emails stolen from skeptics’ computers, dispatching the story with an “everybody does it” narrative that entirely elides the meaning of the far more important admissions. Heck, Greenpeace used to peddle emails taken from my trash to the press, and got the Guardian and others to excerpt sections, out of context, with phony context padded around them and without calling me before running their “story”. That’s how they roll. They’ve no room for outrage. Still, that poses no resemblance to what’s going on now. How it is possible that these media outlets’ regular “issue” reporters do not recognize the import of the fraud admitted to in the emails which, broadly, have been acknowledged as genuine? Incidentally, also note how all of these outlets emphasize as fact, up front, that these documents, codes, data and emails are the product of “hackers” (this has grown from “a hacker” when the story first ran, though no outlet has offered any explanation for that change let alone evidence of the hacking). They simply accept that the University of East Anglia’s computers were hacked, on the word of people who are shown by what was hacked to be liars and charlatans and who have an interest in making the story be something other than the substance of the material. I do not know if the computers were hacked. I do know that there is just as much reason to suspect that the documents were posted by someone on the inside who still possesses a conscience, a “whistleblower”. Remember that this incident occurred after the most recent and audacious twist in the university’s Climatic Research Unit refusal of access to basic raw data and other material necessary to validate their claims serving as the basis for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol (and Kyoto II), “cap-and-trade”, and so on. This was a four-year campaign to hide material — a campaign whose tactics were also admitted to in the alleged emails now made public. After running out of excuses, in September CRU’s Phil Jones simply claimed that he had lost the data so, sorry, no, no one can check it. Implausible beyond comprehension. And if the emails are real and any indication of the way this group operates, deeply dishonest. Soon thereafter someone went and downloaded material that, again if real, says enough, you are scandalizing and perverting “science”. This shall stop. Someone took it upon themselves to enforce a UK freedom of information act that its targets allegedly and apparently admit to subverting. No matter how many stories seek to distract you with the shiny objects of prurient dialogue between sniveling, petulant and nasty global warming alarmists, that isn’t the story. The story is the exposition . Not the revelation, in fact, but merely the revelation of their affirmation of it. I’m told by a cable news producer that, across the board, the green pressure groups, the supposedly “Concerned Scientists” (they even have a Union!), all of them are refusing to come out and speak to the issue. That could be because they understand that what is out is described by the material’s anonymous source as “a random sample.” There could be many more shoes to drop. Why hitch your organization further to the anchor threatening to sink a $7 billion per year (that’s just federal taxpayer-funding) industry? Live to fight another day. There will always be a new Man-as-agent-of-doom theory attracting college kids, Statists and wealthy elites. This cannot simply be a three-day story about titillating emails. The edge seems to have been turned up on information proving everything we have been saying, often in great detail if to no media interest, for years. Kyoto II, “cap-and-trade” and EPA must all be stayed, at least so far as the U.S. is concerned, until the truth is outed and admitted to. Posted Nov 23rd 2009 at 8:38 am in Environment, Media Criticism, News | Comments (103) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sjf53
Valued Member Joined: April 06 2008 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 400 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
REVEALED: THE ABJECT CORRUPTION OF CLIMATE SCIENCEThe "Climategate" whistleblower at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) now faces a police investigation at the instigation of the University authorities. His crime? He revealed what many had long suspected, says the former science advisor to Lady Margaret Thatcher, Lord Christopher Monckton. A tiny clique of politicized scientists, paid by unscientific politicians with whom they were financially and politically linked, were responsible for gathering and reporting data on temperatures from the palaeoclimate to today's climate. The "Team," as they called themselves, bent and distorted scientific data to fit a nakedly political story-line profitable to themselves and congenial to the governments that, these days, pay the bills for 99 percent of all scientific research, says Monckton. What the hacked emails revealed:
Also:
Source: Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, "Lord Monckton's summary of Climategate and its issues," Science and Public Policy Institute, November 30, 2009. For text: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/lord-moncktons-summary-of-climategate-and-its-issues/ For report: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climategate.html For more on Global Warming: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sjf53
Valued Member Joined: April 06 2008 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 400 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lead StoryAll the president’s ClimateGate deniersBy Michelle Malkin • December 2, 2009 09:54 AM
My syndicated column today looks at the global warming cultists in the Obama administration who are working overtime to paper over the ClimateGate scandal. Yesterday, Phil Jones, the head of the U.K.’s Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia stepped aside while the university investigates. Penn State prof Michael Mann, purveyor of the infamous hockey stick graph of spiking global temperatures peddled by Al Gore, is also under investigation. GOP Sen. James Inhofe, vigilant watchdog over global warming shenanigans, wants Babs Boxer to investigate. As Obama heads to Copenhagen to crusade for massive interventions to stop global warming, a new Harris Poll shows a significant shift in public opinion away from the cult of climate change. Jonah Goldberg dissects the groupthink that has gripped the global warming industry and its media enablers. Ed Driscoll takes you on a tour through global warming evolution in six and a half minutes. Well now: “Moderate” (liberal) GOP candidates/lawmakers led by GOP cap-and-tax 8′er Mark Kirk are running as fast as they can from the global warming hot mess. Hide the decline, hide the decline… > Oh, and just a reminder:
*** All the president’s ClimateGate deniers “The science is settled,” we’ve been told for decades by zealous proponents of man-made global warming hysteria. Thanks to an earth-shaking hacking scandal across the pond, we now have mountains of documents from the world’s leading global warming advocacy center that show the science is about as settled as a southeast Asian tsunami. You won’t be surprised by the Obama administration’s response to ClimateGate. With pursed lips and closed eyes and ears, the White House is clinging to the old eco-mantra: The science is settled. Never mind all the devastating new information about data manipulation, intimidation, and cult-like cover-ups to “hide the decline” in global temperatures over the last half-century, they say. The science is settled. Never mind what The Atlantic’s Clive Crook, after wading through the climate science email files of the U.K.’s Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, called the overpowering “stink of intellectual corruption” — combined with mafia-like suppression of dissent, suppression of evidence and methods, and “plain statistical incompetence” exposed by the document trove. The science is settled. Never mind the expedient disappearance of mounds of raw weather station data that dissenting scientists were seeking through freedom of information requests from the Climatic Research Unit. The science is settled. In March, President Obama made a grandiose show of putting “science” above “politics” when lifting the ban on government-funded human embryonic stem cell research. “Promoting science isn’t just about providing resources — it’s also about protecting free and open inquiry,” he said during the signing ceremony. “It’s about letting scientists like those who are here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.” Yet, the pro-sound science president has surrounded himself with radical ClimateGate deniers who have spent their entire professional careers “settling” man-made global warming disaster science through fear-mongering, intimidation, and ridicule of opponents. *Science czar John Holdren, who will testify on Capitol Hill this week at a hearing on ClimateGate, infamously hyped weather catastrophes and demographic disasters in the 1970s with his population control freak pals Paul and Anne Ehrlich. He made a public bet against free-market economist Julian Simon predicting dire shortages of five natural resources as a result of feared overconsumption. He lost on all counts. No matter. Holdren’s failure didn’t stop him from writing forcefully about mass sterilization and forced abortion “solutions” to a fizzling, sizzling, overpopulated planet. And it didn’t stop him from making a living making more dire predictions. In 1986, Ehrlich credited Holdren with forecasting that “carbon-dioxide climate-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020.” He went on to Harvard and the White House. On the David Letterman show earlier this year, Holdren fretted that his son “might not see snow!” Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball notes that Holdren turned up in the ClimateGate files belittling the work of astrophysicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division. Holdren put “Harvard” in sneer quotes when mocking a research paper Baliunas and Soon published in 2003 showing that “the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.” First, deny. Next, deride. *Energy Secretary Steven Chu picked derision as his weapon earlier this year when peddling the Obama administration’s greenhouse-gas emission policy. “The American public…just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act,” the Wall Street Journal quoted Chu. He dismissed dissent by asserting “there’s very little debate” about the impact of “green energy” policy on the economy. There’s “very little debate,” of course, because dissenters get crushed. *The Obama team’s chief eco-dissent-crusher is climate czar Carol Browner. As I’ve reported and reminded over the years, she oversaw the destruction of Environmental Protection Agency computer files in brazen violation of a federal judge’s order requiring the agency to preserve its records during the Clinton years. Over the past year, the EPA has stifled the dissent of Alan Carlin, a senior research analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency, who questioned the administration’s reliance on outdated research on the health effects of greenhouse gases – and also sought to yank a YouTube video created by EPA lawyers Allan Zabel and Laurie Williams that is critical of cap-and-trade. Browner reportedly threatened auto execs in July by telling them to “put nothing in writing…ever” about their negotiations with her. And she is now leading the “science is settled” stonewalling in the wake of ClimateGate. “I’m sticking with the 2,500 scientists,” she said. These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real.” Book-cookers are good at making it seem so. In any case, last year, more than 31,000 scientists — – including 9,021 PhDs — signed a petition sponsored by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. But hey, who’s counting? The science is settled. *** Australia rejects a massive cap-and-tax bill. Richard Lindzen: No, the science isn’t settled. Paul Driessen: Time to cancel Copenhagen. Ron Bailey on the scientific tragedy of ClimateGate:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mary008
V.I.P. Member Joined: June 22 2009 Status: Offline Points: 5769 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
the greatest scientific scandal of our age, say the Booker.
...................................................
I beg to differ... the biggest 'scientific' scandal of our age is - Virusgate.
.........
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sjf53
Valued Member Joined: April 06 2008 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 400 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Click to See video of Jon Stewart
12 Days and ABC, NBC and CBS has zero mentions in their broadcast.?
Even CNN has broadcast and questioned the validity of the data these "consensus" scientist have put forth. Follow the Money. Carbon emissions and the taxes people will pay is a fraud.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sjf53
Valued Member Joined: April 06 2008 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 400 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Click here to see Video
Update – More Than 2,000,000 View 4 1/2 Minute Video Warning About Copenhagen TreatyNovember 10th, 2009 by Linda RunbeckOn October 14th, the Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted world renowned climate skeptic, Lord Christopher Monckton, before a cheering crowd of over 700 at Bethel University in St. Paul. In his 95-minute speech, Lord Monckton, who served as policy adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, utterly destroyed the so-called ‘science’ behind global warming (the entire presentation is available on DVD). But it is the last 4 ½ minutes of his speech that have been echoing worldwide ever since and have been seen by over 2,000,000 people. In that four minutes, Lord Monckton drew attention to the alarming Copenhagen Treaty discussions scheduled for Dec. 6-10 which have the potential to authorize a world governmental body (requiring Senate ratification) to regulate climate and to require that industrial nations pay a substantial “climate debt” to developing countries. With headlines such as “Is Obama Poised to Cede U.S. Sovereignty?”, the video clip began circulating on YouTube the day following the speech and since then, well over 2,000,000 people have viewed it. In addition, nearly 100 exact copies of the video have been downloaded and are circulating on the web. An op-ed thanking Lord Monckton for raising his concerns about the Copenhagen Treaty appeared in the WSJ (Asia edition) on October 28th. The Minnesota Free Market Institute was delighted to play such a significant role in blowing wide open the national debate on climate “realism” vs. “alarmism” and on emissions regulation schemes such as cap-and-trade and the Copenhagen Treaty. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sjf53
Valued Member Joined: April 06 2008 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 400 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Global warming fraud - follow the money
"The ongoing campaign to suppress dissent from the "Global Warming" religion is driven by many special interests, but our federal government may have the most to gain -- trillions in new tax revenue -- from perpetrating the myth that humans' alleged contribution to climate change is "settled science". http://truthbtold.blogtownhall.com/2009/10/24/stop_the_cap -and-trade_global_warming_fraud_before_its_too_late!.thtml Thursday, December 03, 2009
134 Interesting Comments
The Democratically-controlled Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing yesterday to examine the science behind global warming. Two climate experts from the Obama administration testified, but when Republicans asked to have a global-warming skeptic at the hearing, Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) refused to allow it.
Hosting a hearing on global warming with no dissenting opinions made Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the ranking Republican on the Committee, think the Democrats and the Obama administration were just as complicit in the global warming scandal sparked by Climategate as the Climategate scientists themselves. “What the hearings showed is that the President’s science advisors are at the bottom of the whole climate change debate,” said Sensenbrenner. Chairman Markey did not even hold the hearing for the purpose of exploring the Climategate scandal. Rather, it was held to explore the “urgent, consensus view on our planetary problem: that global warming is real, and the science indicates that it is getting worse” in advance of the President’s trip to Copenhagen. Sensenbrenner said that totally missed the point. “As policymakers, we should all be concerned when key climate scientists write in private correspondence that they found a ‘trick’ to ‘hide the decline’ in temperature data documented in climate studies,” he said. Sensenbrenner made it clear that Climategate does not undermine all of global warming science. But the scandal does “read more like scientific fascism than the scientific process,” and very clearly necessitates additional consideration of the global warming issue. “[Markey] has gone so far as to not provide a debate on the issue, when obviously the mail from the British university indicates that debate should be encouraged rather than suppressed,” said Sensenbrenner. He has formally requested an additional hearing, which Markey will be forced to entertain due to Committee rules. But exactly when that additional hearing will put it on the schedule is uncertain. Sensenbrenner also complained that the two witnesses who were called, Dr. John Holdren, the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Dr. Jane Lubchenco, an administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, were not put under oath at the hearing. Markey said that the reason they were not put under oath was because it would be “grandstanding.” But Markey insisted that coal executive be put under oath during hearings last month. “Up until the last couple months, I think that Markey has been very fair in operating his Committee,” said Sensenbrenner. But as the whole scientific political argument is falling apart, he’s become increasingly intolerant.” |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sjf53
Valued Member Joined: April 06 2008 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 400 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mary
Maybe Virusgate and Climate Gate have some connections.
It usually involves Money.
Sorry for all the posts.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sjf53
Valued Member Joined: April 06 2008 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 400 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
November 17, 2009
The "Kyoto II" Climate Change Treaty: Implications for American Sovereignty
Special Report #72
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sjf53
Valued Member Joined: April 06 2008 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 400 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
November 17, 2009
Obama's Copenhagen Suicide PactIn their joint message on climate change negotiations released Nov. 13, President Barack Obama and Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama pledged "to reduce our own emissions by 80% by 2050 and endorse a global goal of reducing emissions by 50% by that year." The acceptance of disproportionate economic burdens is in accordance with the goals set last summer by the G-7 industrialized countries. It is a response to demands at the United Nations that such sacrifices are necessary to move negotiations forward in the face of disinterest and intransigence in the rest of the world.
At the opening of the U.N. climate conference in Barcelona on Nov. 2, Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), concentrated his attacks on the Western nations who have been backing the march to a new climate treaty rather than the developing countries who have been blocking a truly global agreement. De Boer complained, "The targets of industrialized countries that are presently on the table are clearly not ambitious enough." He also criticized the American and European governments for not making "precise financial contributions" to the developing countries to buy their participation in the climate treaty negotiating process. He said developed countries would need to provide at least $10 billion to enable developing countries to immediately actualize low-emission growth and adaptation strategies. Implementing those strategies may require $150 billion annually in transfers from the developed to the developing countries, according to the European Union. The U.N. establishment has to concentrate its attacks on the Western states because the developing states, led by China, India, South Africa, and Brazil, have made it clear they will not be parties to a treaty that places any limits on their economic growth. China's official Xinhua news agency reported that at Barcelona, "The opinion of the Chinese delegation was widely shared by representatives from developing countries and least developed countries such as Benin, Lesotho, Zambia, and Solomon Islands at the closing session." Ibrahim Mirghani Ibrahim of Sudan spoke on behalf of the Group of 77 Third World states, declaring, "The Group will strongly stand against all attempts by developed countries to reach an agreement which would in any way result in superseding the Kyoto Protocol or making it redundant." The Kyoto Protocol is "the only instrument we have for developed countries to take the lead in cutting their increasing emissions," he said, as it places no obligations on the developing world to do anything. The Times of India reported Nov. 6 that even Western attempts to merely include a "shared vision" statement in the treaty "would destroy the firewall between the higher level of commitments of the rich countries and the conditional obligations of the rest" and was thus opposed by India, China, and the Group of 77. This means that the developed countries of America, Japan, and the European nations will have to carry the entire burden of reducing energy use and industrial production to meet the targets set by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In Barcelona, fifty African nations walked out of negotiations, supposedly to protest the refusal of the "rich nations" to cut their emissions by 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 -- the highest figure suggested by the IPCC. But what the Africans really wanted was a pledge of substantial financial aid from the West under the guise of paying for environmental programs. The Barcelona gathering was the last full U.N. conference before the Copenhagen meeting (Dec. 7-18) to draw up a new international treaty to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which will expire in 2012. The UNFCCC press release issued Nov. 6 at the close of the conference admitted that little progress has been made on any of the outstanding issues. Janos Pasztor, Director of the U.N. Secretary-General's Climate Change Support Team, has called on the United States to show "leadership" by imposing unilateral limitations on itself before the Copenhagen conference. In an October 26 press conference, Pasztor cited U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's comment that "we cannot afford another period where the United States stands on the sidelines." This was a reference to the U.S.'s refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol because it did not apply to the developing countries. The same asymmetrical structure defines the pending Copenhagen treaty. It should be remembered that prior to the Kyoto negotiation in 1997, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution (S. Res. 98) by a vote of 95-0 saying that the U.S. should not sign any agreement that fails to apply to the developing countries as well as the industrialized world. An unequal agreement "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States" by giving the nations free of U.N. restrictions a competitive edge in production and trade. Neither the Bill Clinton nor the George W. Bush administrations implemented the Kyoto program. The aim of the U.N. bureaucracy and its leftist allies in the U.S. is to get Congress on board early, before the terms of the Copenhagen treaty are formally determined and it becomes clear to the public that the framework will be no different from Kyoto. According to Pasztor, "The Secretary-General said he was encouraged by the spirit of compromise shown in the bipartisan initiative announced by United States Senators John Kerry and Lindsey Graham. United States negotiators must be empowered in Copenhagen." These two senators authored an op-ed in the New York Times on Oct. 10 in which they claimed to be on the road to sixty Senate votes for climate legislation. Sen. Graham is thought to be a stalking horse for Sen. John McCain, who proposed a cap-and-trade system during his 2008 presidential campaign. To win Graham's support for Kerry's bill (S. 1733), the op-ed endorsed the expansion of nuclear power and domestic oil drilling in pursuit of energy independence. The face-saving kicker for Kerry is that any drilling would have to be "conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner," which means that nothing will likely be done when the decisions are in the hands of green regulators, officials, and judges. Yet there is a silver lining that Secretary-General Ban may have missed. The op-ed stated that "we cannot sacrifice another job to competitors overseas. ... There is no reason we should surrender our marketplace to countries that do not accept environmental standards. For this reason, we should consider a border tax on items produced in countries that avoid these standards." The climate bill passed in the House last June (H.R. 2454) includes provisions for such a tariff. At the U.N., Pasztor had responded to another question at his October 26 press conference by arguing there was need for "movement on a domestic bill. Even if that had not yet been completed, United States negotiators needed to know what was likely to come before President Barack Obama." Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the left-wing Union of Concerned Scientists, said at Barcelona, "Uncertainty about what the United States can bring to the Copenhagen summit hangs over these negotiations." Todd Stern, Special State Department Envoy for Climate Change, testified before a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on the Copenhagen event on Nov. 4. His post is new, created by the Obama administration. In regard to the "large developing countries," he conceded that "we can't get an international deal done unless they are willing to agree in an international context" and "the negotiations have still too often foundered as a result of the developed/developing country divide." He acknowledged that "we cannot expect developing countries -- or indeed any country -- to commit to actions that they cannot plausibly achieve or to make promises that are antithetical to their need to fight poverty and build a better life for their citizens." Yet Stern wanted Congress to move ahead with unilateral-cap-and trade regulations that would lower American living standards anyway, claiming, "Nothing the United States can do is more important for the international negotiation process than passing robust, comprehensive clean energy legislation as soon as possible." Kerry's bill was passed out of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on Nov. 5. President Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders, perhaps with a handful of Republican moderates, seem poised to make the Copenhagen negotiations a suicide pact for the Western industrialized nations. In a complete reversal of the bipartisan policy of twelve years ago, they would lock America into impossibly severe restrictions on economic activity while the non-Western nations, who reject the climate paranoia that grips Western liberalism, move ahead with their own interests. The result will be a change in the balance of wealth and power in the world that will dwarf any change in the climate. 22 Comments on "Obama's Copenhagen Suicide Pact"
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mary008
V.I.P. Member Joined: June 22 2009 Status: Offline Points: 5769 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I think there are ideas flowing among all the countries... coming to a general consensus is
taking a bit of time. China wants a large footprint in the auto industry.. ok...make it safe and affordable. They also want to sell solar over here... we need a nation of auto salesmen/hybrid car techs and solar installers... What can we make or service that the world wants? Our big auto Corps let us down... how to employ the young in future?
............
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mahshadin
Admin Group Joined: January 26 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3882 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WOW
Enough said
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." G Orwell
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sjf53
Valued Member Joined: April 06 2008 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 400 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I am not quite sure enough is being said. Until their is an honest debate and investigations without a political agenda, we should not go further on the Cap and Trade Bill or sign any Treaty in Copenhagen that could be based on a false science. We need the facts of CO 2 emissions based on credible science not a fraudulent ' consensus ' before we all are taxed up the river for it. While other countries reap the benefits. The UN and IPCC's peer review group of 2,500 with a paid political agenda (and they are not all scientists) versus 31,000 plus scientists. Who are you betting on for the truth?
And to make matters worse the 2,500 have no data to back up their claims. Opps! How silly of us....the little people will just have to believe us because the science is "settled"...Why? Because We Said So!
Facts....We don't need no stinking facts, we have a "consensus".
The consequences of this is beyond enormous.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mahshadin
Admin Group Joined: January 26 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3882 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
So sjf what are the consequences of doing NOTHING? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." G Orwell
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mahshadin
Admin Group Joined: January 26 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3882 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sjf
here is a little tid bit fact on the supposed 19,000 to 32,000 leading scientists (often quoted number) by those professing it is a scam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I Talk about a fraud
Again usually the ones yelling the loudest (Fraud) are the ones perpitrating the fraud |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." G Orwell
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mrmouse
V.I.P. Member Joined: April 24 2009 Status: Offline Points: 2225 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Polar ice cap during last Ice Age may not have been as extensive as previously though.
http://www.topnews.in/polar-ice-cap-during-last-ice-age-may-not-have-been-extensive-previously-thought-2241238 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sjf53
Valued Member Joined: April 06 2008 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 400 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tell me....How do you reconcile the Medieval Warming Period? Which had higher temperatures then what we experience now. They also had less population and certainly No man-made Industrial pollution to cause the temperature rise and increased CO2. This has happened more than once in the earth's long history. Why did the IPCC take out this data in their current Hockey Stick theory. It initially was in their original charted data.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sjf53
Valued Member Joined: April 06 2008 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 400 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gerald Marsh: CO2 No Pollutant
Posted by Amy Ridenour · 30 December 2004 · Climate
Physicist Gerald Marsh, who kindly advises The National Center on science issues, has a letter in the December 29 Financial Times: Sir, While it is becoming increasingly fashionable to maintain that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, it was rather shocking to see the Financial Times buy into what can at best be charitably characterised as a form of "political correctness" ("The price of carbon emissions," December 27). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr.Who
Adviser Group Joined: January 08 2009 Status: Offline Points: 392 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You seem to be saying that first those who are skeptical of AGW often claim 32,000 scientists say... I don't know what you are claiming they are claiming because you were not very clear to say the least. So what do you think the deniers are often saying? Then you post a video that allegedly counters that idea that you did not state very well. Let us suppose that there is a fraudulent list out there. How does that in any way mean that all the lists are fraudulent or that there are not a lot of scientists who do not agree with AGW? If the video shows anything it shows that one person based a claim on one false list. Here is a link to a list of scientists, their credentials, and specifically what part of the research they have problems with. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus Next, does it matter if 100 scientists think one thing and 101 think another? NO! Science is not based on concesus. But that it exactly what many of the global warming advocates have made it. The so called facts hat support the theory have been called into question. The science was always based on too much conjecture and rotten computer models. We should make no major changes to the way we run things until we have better evidence that the tripe that is being sold to us as good science. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sjf53
Valued Member Joined: April 06 2008 Location: Arizona Status: Offline Points: 400 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum |