SwiftVets.com :: View topic - Hinderacker: "Voices of Sanity on the Climate"

SwiftVets.com
Service to Country

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Hinderacker: "Voices of Sanity on the Climate"

SwiftVets.com Forum Index -> Geedunk & Scuttlebutt

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Me#1You#10
Site Admin

Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:41 pm Post subject: Hinderacker: "Voices of Sanity on the Climate"

From Powerline some cause for optimism that the Global Warmism cult is being unmasked...

Quote:

Voices of Sanity on the Climate

The 2008 International Conference on Global Climate Change, sponsored by the Heartland Institute, has been going on in New York for the last couple of days. You can read about the conference here. A highlight of the conference is the release of the Summary for Policymakers of a report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The document is, among other things, a rebuttal of the reports released by the United Nation's heavily politicized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. You can access the NIPCC report here.

From the NIPCC report's introduction by Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences:

The IPCC is pre-programmed to produce reports to support the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming and the control of greenhouse gases, as envisioned in the Global Climate Treaty. The 1990 IPCC Summary completely ignored satellite data, since they showed no warming. The 1995 IPCC report was notorious for the significant alterations made to the text after it was approved by the scientists – in order to convey the impression of a human influence. The 2001 IPCC report claimed the twentieth century showed ‘unusual warming’ based on the now-discredited hockey-stick graph. The latest IPCC report, published in 2007, completely devaluates the climate contributions from changes in solar activity, which are likely to dominate any human influence.The report is full of data and addresses such questions as, How much of modern warming is anthropogenic? How much is due to natural causes? How reliable are climate models? How much do we know about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Why is sea level rising? Will the economic effects of continued warming be positive or negative? The science is up to the minute--unlike the UN's report, which deliberately disregarded the most recent studies and data. It's an excellent place to learn the basics of the global warming controversy.

Here is just one chart from the NIPCC report:

Is the current warming mostly human-caused, or is it mainly a continuation of the natural recovery from the Little Ice Age? Your children's economic future may depend on how carefully policy-makers study that question.

Powerline

kate
Admin

Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:18 pm Post subject:

I'm not familiar with this blog, nor this John Coleman of the Weather Channel - interesting comments tho

commensenselogic

Quote:

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

The Weather Channel Founder Advocates Suing Al Gore To Expose The Fraud Of Global Warming

Let’s see, Al Gore is the Chairman and majority stock holder in the largest "carbon credit" selling company in the world Generation Investment Management. I think John Coleman may be on to something.

The fraud of Global Warming is a convenient lie to cover a broad political agenda and “carbon credits” are nothing more than the modern day equivalent of “snake oil”.

<>

Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called “the fraud of global warming.” He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose.

more........

_________________
.
one of..... We The People

Navy_Navy_Navy
Admin

Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 5777

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:40 am Post subject:

Rush Limbaugh read something about the Coleman issue yesterday - what a riot this could be! "Snake oil," indeed! How totally cool if he manages to prove it in court! _________________ ~ Echo Juliet ~ Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother

shawa
CNO

Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 3:50 am Post subject:

American Thinker's Marc Sheppard, who attended the conference, has a good roundup:

Quote:

~snip~
Perhaps had Davies taken some time off from hijacking press members in the hallway to recycle-to-death his "I'm the skunk at the garden party" line, and actually attended a panel or two, he would have heard Steve Milloy's unsurprising response to that question -- Follow the MONEY. That's right, during a Monday afternoon political session, the founder of junkscience.com explained GE's double-dipping ability to manufacture and sell windmills while receiving government subsidies for doing so. And how, under proposed cap-and-trade plans, companies like Alcoa and DOW will be eligible for retroactive carbon credits for emission abatements they've accomplished in the past. Oh, and who do you suppose owns the exchange where these carbon credits will be traded? Can you spell Goldman Sachs?

Fuel refined from what these greenies don't understand about business could cleanly power the planet for years.

~snip~

Besides, the conference didn't focus exclusively on rebuking the junk science of AGW. While tracks one and two featured experts in paleoclimatology and climatology, respectively, the remaining three explored the impacts, economics and politics of warming itself and, moreover, the left's hysterical response to it.

Let's Get One Thing Settled -- The Science is NOT

There were a total of 32 discussions between the opening shredding of temperature records and biased recording mechanisms offered by Prof. Robert Balling and Ross McKitrick and the closing session's critique of media bias by ABC News correspondent John Stossel. Of those, 11 were purely devoted to science and another 8 studied impacts, which were often scientifically inclusive.

If I have any complaint at all about the conference it is only that with 5 sessions running concurrently, one was constantly forced to make the difficult decision of which to attend. That said, moving about as best I could landed me in the midst of many fascinating forums. .

I heard Christopher Monckton recall the consequences of Hitler's eugenics programs, Stalin's lyceum movement, Mao's "great leap backward," and the World Health Organization's DDT ban to conclude that it "kills people if you get the science wrong." And he attributed the current AGW scare story to the "same people" arguably responsible for 40 million children dying from malaria by demagoguing DDT:

"It's the international left, it's the media wanting another scare story, it's teachers wanting to seem relevant ... who sense that they can advance their causes, collectively, together, by getting behind this nonsense."

Lord Mockton feels that the public will eventually become aware that the activists do, indeed, have the science all wrong and that "once the penny drops -- that will be the end of this scare too." The former policy advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher predicts we're not far from that point. I wonder.

(Cont'd): NY Climate Conference: Journey to the Center of Warming Sanity

_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776)

Me#1You#10
Site Admin

Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:38 pm Post subject:

This struck me as a nub of the argument...

Quote:

As usual, our friends in the mainstream dutifully dispensed their duties as well. Covering the event for the New York Times, Andrew C. Revkin writes:

"One challenge they faced was that even within their own ranks, the group - among them government and university scientists, antiregulatory campaigners and Congressional staff members -- displayed a dizzying range of ideas on what was, or was not, influencing climate."Challenge, Andrew? Hearing cogent discussion and widely diverse idea-exchanges in contrast to the monotonous "settled science" IPCC-composed group-speak -- the compulsory soundtrack of previous climate conferences -- far from being a challenge, quickly reaffirmed which side wanted at the truth. As panel member Michael R Fox wrote back in 2006:

"When Michael Crichton said that ‘Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled,' he was right. When it comes to the natural sciences consensus is not science, and science is not consensus."

It's quite amazing when you give this some consideration. While there may be a "consensus" as to a theoretical postulate (which is the global-warmist's self-admitted position), there is no "consensus" in "science". A scientific "fact" is either universally acknowledged as scientifically supportable and demonstrable or it is NOT a "scientific fact".

These leftist GW cultists (and now a GOP presidential nominee/appeaser) are about institutung the most monumental extortion scheme ever foisted upon mankind based upon a "consensus"...and it is a direct and overt ATTACK on the United States and the capitalist system itself.

McCain's response? If I might paraphrase, "Well, even if the global warmists are WRONG, we'll leave our grandchildren a better place to live".

Perhaps so Senator, but it will be a planet bereft of a prosperous middle class. Welcome to Gaia.

Display posts from previous:

	SwiftVets.com Forum Index -> Geedunk & Scuttlebutt	All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum