 Bali for dummies: A primer on what's at stakeEnvironmental | 214446 hits | Dec 03 10:11 am | Posted by: Hyack  The United Nations climate change summit on the Indonesian resort island of Bali could be humanity's last shot at reversing course on policies and behaviour that could cause catastrophic changes to the climate, some world leaders and environmentalists haCommentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
Canada was listed 57 from the top of a list of environmentally aware countries. China topped out as #1. The theory is Canada's alleged GHG output is many more times that of China (per capita). Today visibility in Beijing was less than the width of a street.
That and Australia's re-realignment........interesting times..........
IPCC too blinkered and corrupt to save
Deniers part XXXVI
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Friday, October 26, 2007
Vincent Gray has begun a second career as a climate-change activist. His motivation springs from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body that combats global warming by advocating the reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Dr. Gray has worked relentlessly for the IPCC as an expert reviewer since the early 1990s.
But Dr. Gray isn't an activist in the cause of enforcing the Kyoto Protocol and realizing the other goals of the worldwide IPCC process. To the contrary, Dr. Gray's mission, in his new role as cofounder of The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, is to stop the IPCC from spreading climate-change propaganda that undermines the integrity of science.
"The whole process is a swindle," he states, in large part because the IPCC has a blinkered mandate that excludes natural causes of global warming.
" The Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) 1992 defined 'climate change' as changes in climate caused by human interference with atmospheric composition," he explains. "The task of the IPCC, therefore, has been to accumulate evidence to support this belief that all changes in the climate are caused by human interference with the atmosphere. Studies of natural climate change have largely been used to claim that these are negligible compared with 'climate change.' "
Dr. Gray is one of the 2,000 to 2,500 top scientists from around the world whom the IPCC often cites as forming the basis of its findings. No one has been a more faithful reviewer than Dr. Gray over the years -- he has been an IPCC expert almost from the start, and perhaps its most prolific contributor, logging almost 1,900 comments on the IPCC's final draft of its most recent report alone.
But Dr. Gray, who knows as much about the IPCC's review processes as anyone, has been troubled by what he sees as an appalling absence of scientific rigour in the IPCC's review process.
"Right from the beginning, I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.
"Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC, I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning."
Dr. Gray has detailed extensively the areas in which global warming science falls down. One example that this New Zealander provides comes from his region of the globe: "We are told that the sea level is rising and will soon swamp all of our cities. Everybody knows that the Pacific island of Tuvalu is sinking. Al Gore told us that the inhabitants are invading New Zealand because of it.
"Around 1990 it became obvious that the local tide-gauge did not agree -- there was no evidence of 'sinking.' So scientists at Flinders University, Adelaide, were asked to check whether this was true. They set up new, modern, tide-gauges in 12 Pacific islands, including Tuvalu, confident that they would show that all of them are sinking.
"Recently, the whole project was abandoned as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the 12 islands for the past 16 years. In 2006, Tuvalu even rose."
Other expert reviewers at the IPCC, and scientists elsewhere around the globe, share Dr. Gray's alarm at the conduct of the IPCC. An effort by academics is now underway to reform this UN organization, and have it follow established scientific norms. Dr. Gray was asked to endorse this reform effort, but he refused, saying: "The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only 'reform' I could envisage would be its abolition."
--- - Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and the Urban Renaissance Institute.
www.urban-renaissance.org
CV OF A DENIER:
Vincent Gray is a graduate of the University of Cambridge, with a PhD in physical chemistry. He has published more than 100 scientific papers and authored the book, The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001.'
Dr. Gray has participated in all of the science reviews of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and in 2006 was a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Center.
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus ... l_data.htm
Paul Reiter had to threaten to sue the IPCC to get them to take his name of the list as being in agreement. Christopher Landsea had to write a public letter to resign. They were so embarrassed about screwing up the prediction of massive hurricanes in 2006, they had to let him go rather than cause an incident, and let the public know no science was involved in their prediction.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prome ... eaves.html
John Christy wanted to be taken off, but didn't think it was worth the trouble it would take to get them to take him off the list. He says so in The Great Global Warming Swindle.
Christopher Moncton gives a good summary of the IPCC's 2007 report, which I can summarize in one line - the report is bogus.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070201_monckton.pdf
As far as Bali goes, I'm with this guy.
http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/s ... =87348&p=2
Christopher Moncton gives a good summary of the IPCC's 2007 report, which I can summarize in one line - the report is bogus.
The biggest scientific study probably ever undertaken and Fiddledog wraps it all up in one line. Not bad. I guess it doesn't phase you that the great majority of research scientists in the relevant fields disagree with that conclusion?
Still, the ridicule of the right is a good thing. People aren't dumb. They see scientists calmly explaining that it seems likely that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gas will have serious implciations for world climate in the future, and then they see the political right launching personal smear campaigns, making outlandish statements with absolute certainty ("the report is bogus") and comparing anyone that give's a rats' ass about the state of the planet we will leave to our children to Hitler.
Harper and Bush don't even have the cajones to stick to their convictions. They mumble about how serious climate change is and ow somehting must be done, but it's perfectly transparent to anyone interested in the issue that they don't believe a word of it and they're just lying to get votes. At least Howard was honest about it--and he paid the price.
Polls clearly show that most people in the Europe, Canada and even the US want concrete action on climate change. The right would also have us believe that the scientists and the left-wing media of the world are perpetrating some giant hoax on the poor, dumb electorates of the world. In order for that theory to work, people have to be stupid. And that's why, in the ultimate analysis, the right will fail in this political struggle with climate change--because they assume that people are stupid. But people aren't stupid.
Christopher Moncton gives a good summary of the IPCC's 2007 report, which I can summarize in one line - the report is bogus.
The biggest scientific study probably ever undertaken and Fiddledog wraps it all up in one line. Not bad. I guess it doesn't phase you that the great majority of research scientists in the relevant fields disagree with that conclusion?
Still, the ridicule of the right is a good thing. People aren't dumb. They see scientists calmly explaining that it seems likely that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gas will have serious implciations for world climate in the future, and then they see the political right launching personal smear campaigns, making outlandish statements with absolute certainty ("the report is bogus") and comparing anyone that give's a rats' ass about the state of the planet we will leave to our children to Hitler.
Harper and Bush don't even have the cajones to stick to their convictions. They mumble about how serious climate change is and ow somehting must be done, but it's perfectly transparent to anyone interested in the issue that they don't believe a word of it and they're just lying to get votes. At least Howard was honest about it--and he paid the price.
Polls clearly show that most people in the Europe, Canada and even the US want concrete action on climate change. The right would also have us believe that the scientists and the left-wing media of the world are perpetrating some giant hoax on the poor, dumb electorates of the world. In order for that theory to work, people have to be stupid. And that's why, in the ultimate analysis, the right will fail in this political struggle with climate change--because they assume that people are stupid. But people aren't stupid.
Exactly, thats why it will turn out to be the greatest swindle of the 21st century.
Time to start making a giant carpet to sweep it all under.
The must heralded thousands of scientists are mostly un-acredited ativists, and the balnce with scientific credentials are cherry-picked for their activism.
And yet even this extremely fabricated piece of psuedo-science only predicts a sea-level rise of a foot in the next century.
And yet the HOCKEY PUCKs claim adherence to science and scientists------and AL GORE, Hansen etc.
The polls Zipperfish refers to have proven him wrong-----people are indeed stupid and he is a shining example, with his repeated foolish belief in "science" and "Scientists".
OUTSTANDING!
One problem..........that is the diametric opposite of this BS per-capita nonsense.
For that reason the econ-nuts cannot accept it----remember these guys, a decade back, rejected the US proposal to create carbon-sinks with new forests----it did not produce the GW goal----to destroy the life styles of the industrialized west, extract extortion for the UN (Carbon Credits) and inauguarated Global government by the same euro/Eco-crats.
First of all here's what it is not. It is not, as some tricky liars would suggest science and research produced by scientists specifically for the IPCC. It is a review of what chosen scientists, and others believe is relevant science regarding human causes of climate change.
The mandate of the IPCC is to find existing scientific studies concerning human causes of climate change, and review what it considers to be the science within. To do this countries submit chosen scientists to the IPCC.
So suppose you have these countries...oh I don't know, let's call them China, India, Russia, and Brazil. Suppose they made out like bandits at some climate change accord. Let's call it Kyoto. What sort of scientists do you believe those countries would submit to the IPCC? What sort of conclusions do you think they'd come to in their reviews?
Here's what Climate Scientist Roger Pielke said when asked what his problem was with the IPCC.
http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=445
Then when those contributing scientists made contributions which contradicted or failed to support the "science"......they were subsequently not invited back and found their day jobs threatened by representations from the IPCC to their employers.
Richard Lindzen was threatened but because he was employed by the US government, he was immune.
Exactly, thats why it will turn out to be the greatest swindle of the 21st century.
Time to start making a giant carpet to sweep it all under.
I know--that's what the right keeps wishing for. Tehy've been wishing for it for about ten years now. But it ain't happening. Why is that? You read articels form 1999, from 2002, from 2005--they all spell the end of climate change. And yet the "myth" persists.
The mandate of the IPCC is to find existing scientific studies concerning human causes of climate change, and review what it considers to be the science within.
No that is not the mandate of the IPCC. From the IPCC website:
They IPCC alos won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
Exactly, thats why it will turn out to be the greatest swindle of the 21st century.
Time to start making a giant carpet to sweep it all under.
I know--that's what the right keeps wishing for. Tehy've been wishing for it for about ten years now. But it ain't happening. Why is that? You read articels form 1999, from 2002, from 2005--they all spell the end of climate change. And yet the "myth" persists.
It's peak is over, just like the hockey stick etc.