by Gill 221 Replies latest jw friends
What's in it for China?
China knows that sooner or later fossil fuel reserves will run out and so renewables are essential.
They seem to be making more preparation for the loss of fossil fuel in due course that the British governement have bothered to do.
We are threatened here with power cuts this Novemeber on from the National Grid should the temps drop drastically.
China knows that sooner or later fossil fuel reserves will run out and so renewables are essential.
Partly that and partly the fact their citizens are choking to death from pollution today. Not a sustainable business model to be killing the populace.
We are threatened here with power cuts this Novemeber
The global energy system is struggling to cope with the 1 billion people that designed it - America + the westernized nations.
What future for the 2 billion people that are striving to achieve this living standard today? India + China. Malaysia etc
What future for the other 3 billion in absolute poverty? How can we deliver reliable sustainable grid energy to the 1.6 billion people who have a blackout every night?
What future for the 3 billion people as yet unborn who will be on this planet by 2050, mainly in countries who can least cope with them?
Even if you are not yet believers in climate change, have a think about global energy poverty.
This isn't about whether Al Gore has a big house or sells carbon credits. Popularizers are not serious scientists, and serious scientists don't talk to the public, but somehow we have to figure this out.
what conspiracy besty mate.....they are telling you their plan in the club of rome document.....and the people who planned it are the ones in the gaia society and lucis trust.....not moi
btw....I'm typing this from my igloo.....it's bloody freezing here......
gonna have to get the candles out soon it's that cold
and if it get's worse I'm going to have to light them
Here's a link to a Wikipedia page concerning the scientific opinion/concensus on climate change.
You know, it's one thing to be skeptical. But, seriously, none of us are experts on this issue, and to me it seems like it's the height of sneering arrogance to dismiss the IPCC and the endorsement that its conclusions has received from various scientific societies as "lies" and "bullshit".
Okay Besty, here is the link that wouldn't work earlier. I also invite you to do a google search on skeptical scientists
Inhofe Debunks So-Called 'Consensus' On Global Warming
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, delivered a more than two-hour floor speech on October 26, debunking fears of man-made global warming. Below is an excerpt of his remarks debunking the notion of a "consensus" on man-made global warming fears. (For full speech - click here: )
Senator Inhofe Speech Excerpt:
Essential Point # 4: Debunking "consensus" The fourth and final essential point deals with how the media and climate doomsters insist that there is an overwhelming scientific "consensus" of man-made global warming. The notion of a "consensus" is carefully manufactured for political, financial and ideological purposes. Its proponents never explain fully what "consensus" they are referring to. Is it a "consensus" that future computer models will turn out correct? Is it a "consensus" that the Earth has warmed? Proving that parts of the Earth have warmed does not prove that humans are responsible.
While it may appear to the casual observer that scientists promoting climate fears are in the majority, the evidence continues to reveal this is an illusion. Climate skeptics -- the emerging silent majority of scientists -- receive much smaller shares of university research funds, foundation funds and government grants and they are not plugged into the well-heeled environmental special interest lobby.
On the other side of the climate debate, you have an comparatively well funded group of scientists and activists who participate in UN conferences, receiving foundation monies and international government support and also receive fawning media treatment.
The number of skeptics at first glance may appear smaller, but the skeptics are increasingly becoming vocal and turning the tables on the Goliath that has become the global warming fear industry.
Key components of the manufactured "consensus" fade under scrutiny. We often hear how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But what you don't hear is that both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements.
Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. It appears that the governing boards of these organizations caved in to pressure from those promoting the politically correct view of UN and Gore-inspired science. The Canadian Academy of Sciences reportedly endorsed a "consensus" global warming statement that was never even approved by its governing board.
Rank-and-file scientists are now openly rebelling. James Spann, a certified meteorologist with the AMS, openly defied the organization when he said in January that he does "not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype." In February a panel of meteorologists expressed unanimous climate skepticism, and one panelist estimated that 95% of his profession rejects global warming fears.
In August 2007, a comprehensive survey of peer-reviewed scientific literature from 2004-2007 revealed "Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory."
"Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers 'implicit' endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no 'consensus,'" according to an August 29, 2007 article in Daily Tech.
In addition, a September 26, 2007 report from the international group Institute of Physics' finds no "consensus" on global warming. Here is an excerpt: "As world leaders gathered in New York for a high-level UN meeting on climate change, a new report by some of the world's most renowned scientists urges policymakers to keep their eyes on the "science grapevine", arguing that their understanding of global warming is still far from complete." The Institute of Physics is also urging world leaders "to remain alert to the latest scientific thought on climate change."
Debunking UN mirage of "consensus"
In May, UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared "it's completely immoral, even, to question" the UN's alleged global warming "consensus," according to a May 10, 2007 article.
There are frequently claims that the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers is the voice of hundreds or even thousands of the world's top scientists. But such claims do not hold up to even the lightest scrutiny.
According to the Associated Press, during the IPCC Summary for Policymakers meeting in April 2007, only 52 scientists participated. The April 9, 2007 AP article by Seth Borenstein reported:
"Diplomats from 115 countries and 52 scientists hashed out the most comprehensive and gloomiest warning yet about the possible effects of global warming, from increased flooding, hunger, drought and diseases to the extinction of species."
Many of the so-called "hundreds" of scientists who have been affiliated with the UN as "expert reviewers" are in fact climate skeptics. Skeptics like Virginia State Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels, Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy, New Zealand climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, former head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo, Tom V. Segalstad, and MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen have served as IPCC "expert reviewers" but were not involved in writing the alarmist Summary for Policymakers.
New study finds IPCC "consensus" an "illusion"
An analysis released in September 2007 on the IPCC scientific review process by climate data analyst John McLean, revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is "an illusion."
The new study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN's peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that 'it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years."
The analysis by McLean states: "The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC's 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all."
Let me repeat the key point here: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.
UN scientist says IPCC has ‘flawed review process'
This analysis was echoed by UN scientist Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist.
In an August 13, 2007 letter, Khandekar lashed out at those who "seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN's] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.'"
Khandekar continued: "Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth's surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed."
"Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth's temperature trends and associated climate change," Khandekar concluded.
Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a "sham." Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. "That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he said on March 5, 2007. "It's not true," he added.
Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA's National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC's 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science.
Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN:
"I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns."
"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound," Landsea added.
As if to further cement these allegations, the UN allowed a Greenpeace activist to co-author a key economic report in 2007. Left unreported by most of the media was the fact that Bill Hare, an advisor to Greenpeace, was a lead co- author of a key economic report in the IPCC's 4th Assessment. Not surprisingly, the Greenpeace co-authored report predicted a gloomy future for our planet unless we follow the UN's policy prescriptions.
The UN IPCC's own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be "change[d]" to "ensure consistency with" the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.
In addition, the IPCC more closely resembles a political party's convention platform battle - not a scientific process. During an IPCC Summary for Policymakers process, political delegates and international bureaucrats squabble over the specific wording of a phrase or assertion.
Steve McIntyre, one of the individuals responsible for debunking the infamous "Hockey Stick" temperature graph, slammed the IPCC Summary for Policymaker's process on January 24, 2007.
McIntyre wrote: "So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary' adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the ‘necessary' adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me."
UN activist scientists hype data
As you continue to scratch beneath the surface of the alleged global warming "consensus" more discoveries await.
Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.
"I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol," Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007.
Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. also detailed the corruption of the UN IPCC process on September 1, 2007:
"The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow," Pielke explained.
He added: "We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report."
Kyoto represents ‘authentic global governance'
Politics appears to be the fuel that runs the UN IPCC process from the scientists to the bureaucrats to the delegates and all the way to many of the world leaders involved in it. And another key to the motivation of the UN was explained by former French President Jacques Chirac in 2000:
Chirac said Kyoto represents "the first component of an authentic global governance."
These growing critiques of the politicized IPCC process have been echoed by the UK's Lord Nigel Lawson - former Chancellor of the Exchequer and a Member of the House of Lords Committee that reviewed the IPCC process.
Lawson called for the abolishment of the UN's IPCC process.
"I believe the IPCC process is so flawed, and the institution, it has to be said, so closed to reason, that it would be far better to thank it for the work it has done, close it down, and transfer all future international collaboration on the issue of climate change..." Lawson said in 2005.
Extravagantly Funded Warming Crusade Follows Ice Age Fears
The huge organizational and funding advantage that proponents of climate alarmism enjoy over scientific skeptics has led to a pretty elaborate and impressive façade of "consensus." Many climate skeptics have been excluded from key roles in the politicized IPCC process and largely ignored by the media unless they are being demonized as "flat Earther's" or accused of being part of a well funded industry campaign. But in reality, it is the climate fear peddlers that enjoy an overwhelming funding advantage over skeptics.
Since the late 1980's when global warming fears rose out of the scorched frost of the 1970's coming ice age scare, an international organized effort and tens of billions of dollars have been spent promoting the warming fear gravy train.
Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter estimates proponents of global warming fears worldwide have received over $50 billion from international sources and the U.S. over the last two decades.
"In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one," Carter wrote on June 18, 2007.
The U.S. alone spends over $5 billion a year on research directly or indirectly related to global warming. Adding to these totals of funding man-made climate fears are large foundations like the Heinz Foundation, international governments, the United Nations, worldwide universities and individuals like billionaires like Richard Branson, and George Soros.
In fact, if you want to get a study funded today on anything from suicides to butterflies, researchers are finding that they better somehow link the issue to global warming and it will increase your chances of securing funding dramatically.
Meteorologist James Spann suggests scientific objectively is being compromised by the "big cash grab" of money flowing to proponents of man-made climate fears. I previously noted that NASA's James Hansen received a $250,000 award from the Heinz Foundation.
"Billions of dollars of grant money are flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story," Spann wrote on January 18, 2007.
The imbalance of money between the promoters of climate fears and skeptics is so large that one 2007 U.S. Department of Agriculture grant of $20 million to study how "farm odors" contribute to global warming exceeded ALL of the money the groups skeptical of climate fears allegedly received from ExxonMobil over the past two decades.
CNN's Anderson Cooper noted my campaign funding sources in a program just this week, but he failed to investigate the huge financial advantage proponents of man-made global warming have over skeptics.
Hundreds of skeptical scientists to be heard in upcoming Senate report
Later this fall, my staff on the EPW committee will also be releasing a report detailing the hundreds of scientists, many of them affiliated with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process, who have spoken out recently to oppose climate alarmism. The report will feature the scientists -- many of them who have finally had it with claims that "all scientists agree" -- in their own words. The report will be complete with the scientists' biographies and web links for further reading.
This new research and the hysteria created by the UN, Gore and the media have prompted frustrated scientists to finally fight back in the name of a rational approach to science.
Climate rationalists or skeptics do not need to engage in smoke and mirrors to state their case and we will be offering the world a chance to read and decide for themselves, unfiltered from the increasingly activist and shrill lens of media outlets like NBC News, Newsweek, Time, CBS News, ABC News, CNN.
I have stood on this floor for years detailing all the unfolding science that debunked climate alarm. These scientific developments of 2007 are the result of years or decades of hard work by scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears. Finally reaching the point where we can watch the alarm crumble is very satisfying.
# # #
End Speech Excerpt:
To read Senator Inhofe's Full Speech please click here:
To Read Selected Speech Highlights click here:
The fourth and final essential point deals with how the media and climate doomsters insist that there is an overwhelming scientific "consensus" of man-made global warming.
[...] "Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers 'implicit' endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no 'consensus,'" according to an August 29, 2007 article in Daily Tech.
If I understand correctly, the "concensus" that is being referred to here is the belief that more than half of the warming of the past 50 years has anthropogenic causes, not the belief that the warming has anything at all to do with human activity (just to clarify). And so, 45% of the papers either explicity or implicity agree that half+ of the warming is due to human activity, and 48% are neutral to this claim.
I only say this because the whole tone of the speech seems to be, 'there's no concensus on man-made global warming'. I don't think that the statistics quoted above support this well - they only demonstrate that not all believe that more than half of it is human related.
I have'nt read all the responses here but I'd like to point out that sunspot activity is cyclic as it is known that it effects radio transmissions at certain frequencies ,that is, the length of certain frequencies are influenced by large sunspots and flares so that they won't "skip" the same between the surface of the ground and atmosphere
