sunsettommy

Which isn't used to pay scientists for research but to act as a clearing house for that work. Try again. LOL, I never said the SCIENTISTS themselves were being funded.But the IPCC they work with is funded by the U.N. This means they have to follow the guidelines of that body. Here again from Wikipedia(you need to read more): The IPCC concentrates its activities on the tasks allotted to it by the relevant WMO Executive Council and UNEP Governing Council resolutions and decisions as well as on actions in support of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process [12]. They have to follow it or they are not part of the program.Funding or not. Try again.

From Wikipedia, [edit] Operations The current Chair of the IPCC is Rajendra K. Pachauri, elected in May 2002; previously Robert Watson headed the IPCC. The IPCC Panel is composed of representatives appointed by governments and organizations. Participation of delegates with appropriate expertise is encouraged. Plenary sessions of the IPCC and IPCC Working Groups are held at the level of government representatives. Non Governmental and Intergovernmental Organisations may be allowed to attend as observers. Sessions of the IPCC Bureau, workshops, expert and lead authors meetings are by invitation only [7]. Attendance at the 2003 meeting was 350 government officials and climate change experts. After the opening ceremonies, plenary sessions are closed meetings [8]. The meeting report [9] states there were 322 persons in attendance at Sessions and with about seven-eighths of participants being from governmental organizations [10]. The IPCC is led by government scientists, but also involves several hundred academic scientists and researchers. It synthesises the available information about climate change and global warming, has published four major reports reviewing the latest climate science, as well as more specialized reports. The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature [11]. There are several major groups: IPCC Panel: Meets in plenary session about once a year and controls the organization's structure and procedures. The Panel is the IPCC corporate entity. Chair: Elected by the Panel. Secretariat: Oversees and manages all activities. Supported by UNEP and WMO. Bureau: Elected by the Panel. Chaired by the Chair. 30 members include IPCC Vice-Chairs, Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs of Working Groups and Task Force. Working Groups: Each has two Co-Chairs, one from the developed and one from developing world, and a technical support unit. Working Group I: Assesses scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change. Working Group II: Assesses vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, consequences, and adaptation options. Working Group III: Assesses options for limiting greenhouse gas emissions and otherwise mitigating climate change. Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories The IPCC receives funding from UNEP, WMO, and its own Trust Fund for which it solicits contributions from governments. my emphasis Try again.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE

It was created by the World Meteorological Organization and the UNDP. It assesses research paid for by universities, institutes, countries etc. These scientists don't get paid by the IPCC. It is a plenary meeting that takes place once a year to discuss the environment. You just mentioned 2 United Nations organizations. Try again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernme..._Climate_Change Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search IPCC redirects here. For other uses see IPCC (disambiguation). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess the "risk of human-induced climate change". The Panel is open to all members of the WMO and UNEP. IPCC reports are widely cited [1] [2] in almost any debate related to climate change [3] [4]. National and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative. More in the link.

Higgly how about discussion on the topic? What about the spanish writers viewpoint about a civilized culture being replaced by a mostly uncivilized culture that comes in its place?

Most of the scientists who report of global warming don't work for the U.N., are not paid by the U.N., don't have anything to do with the U.N. That can't be said about climate change deniers and the oil industry. Umm who created the IPCC and gives it funding?

I read this all a few days ago. I looked at the Real Climate page a while back looking for other material. I followed the link back to Glassman's work and read it. If Glassman's observations have merit, they will be further researched. Sorry if I put words in your mouth. I am not dismissing Glassman's work. Just waiting to hear additional confirmation of the material from several sources. Given how many people are researching global warming whether to debunk it or or to confirm it, I suspect we'll see a lot of ideas tossed into the mix. That is fine.

LOL, Try reading up on the subject since CO2 is NOT the main cause of Venus being very hot. Sunlight can barely penetrate the outer layers.The clouds are VERY reflective. Right now Saturn,Mars,Pluto and Titan show evidence of warming.The Sun is at a 600 or 1000 year high in solar radiation.I think they are absorbing the increasing radiation. Here on Earth increasing atmospheric CO2 levels generally has a LOGARITHMIC effect on absorbing outgoing IR wavelengths.They have only certain frequencies too. Here from LOBOS MOTL a Phycist, Climate sensitivity and editorial policies Excerpt: Climate sensitivity is defined as the average increase of the temperature of the Earth that you get (or expect) by doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere - from 0.028% in the pre-industrial era to the future value of 0.056% (expected around 2100). Recall that the contribution of carbon dioxide to the warming is expected because of the "greenhouse" effect and the main question is how large it is. The greenhouse effect is nothing else than the absorption (of mostly infrared radiation emitted by the Earth) by the "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere, mainly water vapor - but in this case we are focusing on carbon dioxide, one of the five most important gases causing this effect after water vapor. Snip: You should realize that the carbon dioxide only absorbs the infrared radiation at certain frequencies, and it can only absorb the maximum of 100% of the radiation at these frequencies. By this comment, I want to point out that the "forcing" - the expected additive shift of the terrestrial equilibrium temperature - is not a linear function of the carbon dioxide concentration. Instead, the additional greenhouse effect becomes increasingly unimportant as the concentration increases: the expected temperature increase for a single frequency is something like 1.5 ( 1 - exp[-(concentration-280)/200 ppm] ) Celsius The decreasing exponential tells you how much radiation at the critical frequencies is able to penetrate through the carbon dioxide and leave the planet. The numbers in the formula above are not completely accurate and the precise exponential form is not quite robust either but the qualitative message is reliable. When the concentration increases, additional CO2 becomes less and less important. In particular, there exists nothing such as a "runaway effect" or a "point of no return" or a "tipping point" or any of the similar frightening fairy-tales promoted by Al Gore and his numerous soulmates. The formula above simply does not allow you more than 1.5 Celsius degrees of warming from the CO2 greenhouse effect. Similar formulae based on the Arrhenius' law predicts a decrease of the derivative "d Temperature / d Concentration" to be just a power law - not exponential decrease - but it is still a decrease. More here, http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/climate-...-editorial.html

I'm sure that if Glassman's work is as revolutionary as you say, we'll see it duplicated by others in the next weeks. LOL, It is obvious that you did not read the link much.If any since your reply was just 18 minutes after my post. The paper is not really that revolutionary.It is based on the existing data that has been around a while.Data that many climate researchers pointedly ignore.I have known for a while about the proven time lag for CO2 with temperature increases. Dr.Glassman brought up examples of data being ignored in the report.Look for them. Try taking your time reading it up will ya.It is a lot of stuff to digest. I did not say that his work is revolutionary anyway.Why did you try to put such words I never said in my mouth? There has been a number of other climate science papers posted in recent months showing that in some way CO2 is an overrated CO2 greenhouse gas. Try reading Gavin Schmidts rebuttal.It is revealing at how shallow he really is as a Climate scientist.Dr. Glassman is not a climate scientist.But he reveals a better understanding of the CO2 cycle.

I see that not one CO2 Global Warming apologist on this forum wants to tackle this. It might warm your heart to know that Gavin Schmidt of Realclimate.com made a snotty rebuttal to the posted article. But alas a counter rebuttal has been made that exposes Gavins weak arguments. It is all in the link. CO2 as a greenhouse is not only irrationally demonized.It is not not even a significant warming forcing. Ciao.

This is one of the stupidest and most ignorant statements I've ever read on MapleLeafWeb. The laws that the USA has in place now are significantly more tyranical than anything these guys have ever comitted to paper. You have just shown your ignorance. You should investigate some legal commentary on the recent laws mean. And this is another of the stupidest and most ignorant statements I've ever read on MapleLeafWeb. Whatever your views of the current US regime, any comparison between them and the worst butchers of history is utterly ludicrous, and claiming the US is one of the most tyrannical governments of the past 1000 years is a statement that casts doubt on not only your education, but also your intelligence. -k This is why I can not take him seriously because he is just too loony. Paranoids are like that.

Are you kidding ? You cannot see that in the confession tape that is not Bin Laden ? Since when does corporate media commentary count as proof ? Pretend all you want but pretending doesn't protect you from the truth and that WAS NOT Bin Laden in the tape. "Oh mortal man, is there anything you cannot be made to believe ?" (forget who). Are you for real ? I rest my case. Thank you.

HUMAN EVENTS Online Did George W. Bush Kill JFK? by Mac Johnson Posted Nov 21, 2006 Snip: But events since then have convinced me that Oswald could have confessed, wrote a book called “I Did It!” and presented film of himself actually pulling the trigger on international television and it would have made very little difference to those who peddle and purchase conspiracy pulp like so much mental junk food. What the JFK conspiracy culture really owes its existence to is an innate human will to believe in conspiracies. September 11 convinced me of that—or, more specifically, the conspiracy theories that have grown up around September 11. None of the 9/11 hijackers claimed to be “patsies.” There is no dispute over their desire to commit the act, for which they planned and trained for years. Many left wills and martyrdom statements. The leaders of the organization to which they belonged, including Osama Bin Laden, have admitted on video that al Qaeda planned and executed the attacks. Victims on the planes made cell phone calls describing the hijackings in real time. The impacts of the two of the hijacked planes were caught on numerous videotapes, and witnessed by thousands in person. Yet hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans believe that the attacks were perpetrated by … George W. Bush. To these people, the terrorists are fictional, the planes were drones, the twin towers were collapsed in a controlled implosion, and the CIA planned it all, as did Halliburton—all to create a war for oil in Afghanistan which has no oil, so that George W. Bush could use the war as an excuse to end democracy and remain in power forever by invading Iraq and thus controlling the outcome of the elections that the GOP just lost in a landslide. Well, that’s the American nut version. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18153

I disagree. This is a matter of public policy and these people are being given tax breaks. There is too much room for shenanigans if their identities are kept hidden. The tax collection agency would know who they are.

You should hope that works out to be the case this time because you are in a small minority when you think Osama did it. Tell me why you think Osama did it. FOXNEWS.COM HOME > WORLD > NATIONAL Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11 Saturday, October 30, 2004 Excerpt: WASHINGTON — Usama bin Laden (search ) made his first televised appearance in more than a year Friday in which he admitted for the first time ordering the Sept. 11 attacks and accused President Bush of "misleading" the American people. Snip: In what appeared to be conciliatory language, bin Laden said he wanted to explain why he ordered the airline hijackings that hit the World Trade Center (search) and the Pentagon so Americans would know how to act to prevent another attack. "To the American people, my talk is to you about the best way to avoid another Manhattan," he said. "I tell you: Security is an important element of human life and free people do not give up their security." After the video was aired, President Bush said that "Americans will not be intimidated" by bin Laden. Sen. John Kerry criticized Bush for failing to capture bin Laden earlier and said that "I can run a more effective war on terror http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html Here is another source. From the TELEGRAPH, Bin Laden: Yes, I did it By David Bamber (Filed: 11/11/2001) OSAMA BIN LADEN has for the first time admitted that his al-Qa'eda group carried out the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the Telegraph can reveal. Snip: The footage, to which the Telegraph obtained access in the Middle East yesterday, was not made for public release via the al-Jazeera television network used by bin Laden for propaganda purposes in the past. It is believed to be intended as a rallying call to al-Qa'eda members. In the video, bin Laden says: "The Twin Towers were legitimate targets, they were supporting US economic power. These events were great by all measurement. What was destroyed were not only the towers, but the towers of morale in that country." The hijackers were "blessed by Allah to destroy America's economic and military landmarks". He freely admits to being behind the attacks: "If avenging the killing of our people is terrorism then history should be a witness that we are terrorists. Yes, we kill their innocents and this is legal religiously and logically." That was very easy.Tell me that you never looked it up? See why I can not take you seriously?

Rocket Scientist’s Journal … UNDER CONSTRUCTION … October 24, 2006 CO2 ACQUITTAL THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD Excerpt: ABSTRACT Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well‑known but under‑appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2‑rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere. Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation. Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase. If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere. http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/200...ittal.html#more CO2 is an overrated "greenhouse gas".

LOL, He was not in a cave at the time. Already you tripped yourself with that. He and his boys planned it for several years in the late 1990's. He took the credit for it too. Your ignorance is obvious. I have been on other forums where people like you were easily blown away with a few things about the event of 9/11.So why should I have to go through all the work blowing away the obvious to people like you only to see your paranoia bubble up. You brought up nothing rational and coherent in this thread. Only clueless people swallow stupid conspiracies. Do you realize that 99 people can be wrong and 1 person can be right? It has happened before a number of times in science. It is plain that you and many others have no idea how hard it is to take down the building with explosives.It would have taken many TONS of the stuff. All the while nobody who works there notices it and that many of them will die for it. You are easily led by those who have an agenda.

Such information should available to all members of a church if they ask. It is kind of hard to convince people to donate money if you don't disclose what the money is being spent on. I also believe there are regulatory requirements on charities that issue tax receipts - if you donate money you have a right to know. Seems like common sense to me. I agree with you. The donors themselves should have some privacy,but the dollars given should be visible.

Why ? Just from reading the information you have posted. I consider it stupid. It is plain you have no idea how hard it is to do what they claim happened. It is impossible.

http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1164125941.shtml Unbelievable. Unbelievable that you swallow this. The distortions are the usual and what is more.They largely ignore his climate reports as shown on his website. The planet is actually realeasing most of the CO2 each year.Mankind releases a small amount yearly in comparison.The Media and environmentalists lies goes on. Then too since Atmospheric CO2 increases has a largely logarithmic effect.Its effectiveness declines as more of it is added in the atmosphere. Has anyone noticed that a lot of horrors of global warming failed to show up this year? Hurricane numbers in the Atlantic among the lowest of the last 50 years? That the warming trend has leveled off since 1998.No accelerating trend indicated on ANY chart! That is EIGHT years! No accelerating trend at all. No accelerating increases of Atmospheric CO2 either.Just the usual 1.5 ppm per year. Methane has levelled off to a flat level.No increase or decrease. That Earth is in a ( 600 or 1000 year ) high solar cycle.The Sun has been well above average in output.That means there are more IR wavelengths for CO2 to absorb among other things. The very next solar cycle is now being predicted to be the weakest on record.This favors COOLING. That the Vostock Ice cores show a clear lag of CO2 increases AFTER the temperatures increased by hundreds of years. There is at present time a Global warming.However it is not catastrophic and certaintly not something serious to spend humongous amounts of money chasing a phantom. The Kyoto Treaty is stupid.Not worth the expeditures for such paltry returns.

He's not image-building - he's tearing apart stereotypes. The very fact that we're having this debate is a victory for conservatives. The main point here is that, just because you believe in a "feel good" ideology doesn't make you any more of a "kind" or "sexy" person and that many (maybe most?) conservatives are kinder and sexier than their liberal counterparts. So keep on debating, libs. "Me thinks thou protesteth too much" Huh?

There it is in black and white. Churches received close to 45% of 'charitable' donations in Canada and people who donate to churches are likely to donate more money than people who donate to other types of charities. This more or less proves that you cannot draw conclusions about the generosity of people based on their total charitable donations unless you also ask how much people donated to charities other than the church they attend. Thank you.

Wrong - I have read the finanical statements for two different suburban churches and I know in those cases that almost all of the money was going to pay for buildings and priests. This information is not available online so I cannot satisfy your demands for links. But I am talking from personal experience and I am confident that my statements are accurate. You can insist on denying my point but your denial does not mean it is not true. Ok ok, I will not bother you with it anymore. But I must say that it appears you read confidential? financial reports.

Why, because it's an opinion you don't share? You're calling lots of people trolls or flame-baiters lately. Global Warming is not an "opinion". It is reality. I'm sorry if you can't or aren't able to see it, but we're not talking about what someone's favorite color is here. LOL, Still angry and still no debate comes from you. Why not take a short vacation from this forum? Happy Thanksgiving! You're new so I'll let you know...off topic personal banter is frowned upon by the admin. So why make a post when you refuse to debate? Besides I did not realize being friendly and wishing you a good Thanksgiving was inappropriate behavior.