Scientists Challenge UN and Gore

[lukin]

More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore

This article also includes many informative links.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore

Edited December 14, 2010 by lukin

[pfezziwig]

Do we really need unanminity among thousands of scientists and government officials to decide whether polluting the environment is a bad thing?

At best this debate will conclude it's not 100% certain man made pollution is causing global warming. Either way I still want to reduce pollution, does anyone think its ok to pollute seeing as it is not certain to cause the near term destruction of the planet? Who wants to live in in a smog covered city, or next to a coal powered power plant?

Take your pick of reasons to support the reduction of pollution, there's something for everyone:

1] companies operate more efficiantly when they waste less, this is an econmic argument much of Europe adopted.

2] pollution is unhealthy to all living things, a health related argument

3] pollution destroys the environment, an environmentalist argument

[Pliny]

Do we really need unanminity among thousands of scientists and government officials to decide whether polluting the environment is a bad thing?

At best this debate will conclude it's not 100% certain man made pollution is causing global warming. Either way I still want to reduce pollution, does anyone think its ok to pollute seeing as it is not certain to cause the near term destruction of the planet? Who wants to live in in a smog covered city, or next to a coal powered power plant?

Take your pick of reasons to support the reduction of pollution, there's something for everyone:

1] companies operate more efficiantly when they waste less, this is an econmic argument much of Europe adopted.

2] pollution is unhealthy to all living things, a health related argument

3] pollution destroys the environment, an environmentalist argument

No one can argue that it wouldn't be good if we didn't create any waste at all in our activities.

Of course, we should minimize our "pollution".

The argument is whether or not climate change (previously global warming) is anthropogenic in nature.

[scribblet]

Ask the 300 people stranded on the highway near Sarnia how they feel about GW LOL

[Michael Hardner]

So far, the most common red herrings on AGW are:

1 ) 70s ice age

2 ) Quoting today's weather as proof of anything

3 ) Anonymous 'scientists' objecting to proven concepts, en masse

This thread has 2 of 3 ~

[Saipan]

So far, the most common red herrings on AGW are:

1 ) 70s ice age

Was blue herring then

2 ) Quoting today's weather as proof of anything

Yeah, what does the cold weather the last ten or so years prove anyway? If "scientists" say the sky is green then by golly it's green. And we have consensus

3 ) Anonymous 'scientists' objecting to proven concepts, en masse

What are "proven concepts"?

[Michael Hardner]

Saipan, as I said you're better off starting some conspiracy thread where we can all discuss things at a higher level, as in 'global conspiracy and who is behind it' kind of stuff...

[bush_cheney2004]

So far, the most common red herrings on AGW are:

1 ) 70s ice age

2 ) Quoting today's weather as proof of anything

3 ) Anonymous 'scientists' objecting to proven concepts, en masse

This thread has 2 of 3 ~

You left out melting glaciers in the Himalayas....

[Wild Bill]

So far, the most common red herrings on AGW are:

1 ) 70s ice age

2 ) Quoting today's weather as proof of anything

3 ) Anonymous 'scientists' objecting to proven concepts, en masse

This thread has 2 of 3 ~

Maybe so, Michael. Still, it is just as illogical to give a tie to those pushing the GW argument. Your points work both ways but it always seems as if they are always used against the 'Deniers'.

To accept GW as a given and demand that all evidence from 'Deniers' be labeled as spurious is a religious and not a scientific approach.

[Keepitsimple]

Do we really need unanminity among thousands of scientists and government officials to decide whether polluting the environment is a bad thing?

At best this debate will conclude it's not 100% certain man made pollution is causing global warming. Either way I still want to reduce pollution, does anyone think its ok to pollute seeing as it is not certain to cause the near term destruction of the planet? Who wants to live in in a smog covered city, or next to a coal powered power plant?

Take your pick of reasons to support the reduction of pollution, there's something for everyone:

1] companies operate more efficiantly when they waste less, this is an econmic argument much of Europe adopted.

2] pollution is unhealthy to all living things, a health related argument

3] pollution destroys the environment, an environmentalist argument

That's the sad part....there have been so many billions expended on Kyoto that we could have easily paid for scrubbers on every single coal fired power station in China - if not the entire world....that would reduce CO2 and other pollutants by a huge amount. As Canada is trying to do, we should be combatting REAL pollutants.

[Michael Hardner]

You left out melting glaciers in the Himalayas....

I haven't seen anybody use that here, but if I do see it, I'll add it to the list.

[Michael Hardner]

Maybe so, Michael. Still, it is just as illogical to give a tie to those pushing the GW argument. Your points work both ways but it always seems as if they are always used against the 'Deniers'.

To accept GW as a given and demand that all evidence from 'Deniers' be labeled as spurious is a religious and not a scientific approach.

Not all evidence is spurious, but those specific arguments are.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not all evidence is spurious, but those specific arguments are.

So do you believe that polar bears are dying out? See how it works in the other direction?

[Michael Hardner]

So do you believe that polar bears are dying out? See how it works in the other direction?

No, nor will the Maldives be flooding soon.

Again, how many times has the ice age scarecrow been posted on these boards ? How many times have polar bears been ?

I don't remember seeing polar bears on here...

Let's have a Google fight ? Remember Rock Em Sock Em Robots ?

In this corner... Google search of "ice age" on Maple Leaf Web:

http://www.google.ca/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=polar+bears+site%3Awww.mapleleafweb.com%2Fforums&btnG=Google+Search#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&q=%22ice+age%22+site:www.mapleleafweb.com%2Fforums&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22ice+age%22+site:www.mapleleafweb.com%2Fforums&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=cbf4110e64b3b47b

193 hits

In this corner... Google search of "polar bears":

http://www.google.ca/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=polar+bears+site%3Awww.mapleleafweb.com%2Fforums&btnG=Google+Search#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&q=%22polar+bears%22+site:www.mapleleafweb.com%2Fforums&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=cbf4110e64b3b47b

68 hits.

Ice Age win.

[GostHacked]

Take your pick of reasons to support the reduction of pollution, there's something for everyone:

1] companies operate more efficiantly when they waste less, this is an econmic argument much of Europe adopted.

2] pollution is unhealthy to all living things, a health related argument

3] pollution destroys the environment, an environmentalist argument

I agree, pollution needs to be reduced. This I will never argue with. Every single person on this board can agree to reducing pollution over all. We just seemed to be focused on reducing a specific type which to me is a very narrow approach.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, nor will the Maldives be flooding soon.

Again, how many times has the ice age scarecrow been posted on these boards ? How many times have polar bears been ?

I don't remember seeing polar bears on here...

Since when does MLW constitute the entirety of discussion about this topic? Maybe you are not aware that in several nations, "cute" polar bears (and their implied extinction) are featured in AGW ad campaigns?

[Michael Hardner]

Since when does MLW constitute the entirety of discussion about this topic? Maybe you are not aware that in several nations, "cute" polar bears (and their implied extinction) are featured in AGW ad campaigns?

I don't care about the public sphere. We discuss things here, unless you count talking back to your TV during commercials, which I do.

So do you believe that polar bears are dying out? See how it works in the other direction?

"The other direction" to me means pro-AGW posters posting blatant falsehoods, and hoary superstitions around AGW, such as the Polar Bear thing you pointed out. Guess what ? It doesn't happen as often. More often, we have deniers coming here and posting "what about the ice age scare ?" over and over.

I would hope that you would, as a smart poster, jump on those threads just as quickly in the interest of making a better board. You better be sure that I would do the same if I saw people posting blatant falsehoods, such as 9/11 denial etc.

[waldo]

I don't remember seeing polar bears on here...

you're welcome

Any contrary evidence that is especially strong is ignored, such as when the number of seals or polar bears in an area is noted as far higher than normal by the people who have lived there for centuries, contrary to the result expected from global warming...

...

- considerable scientific research of polar bear population exists, notwithstanding the anecdotal observances.

According to a 2009 report by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, of the 19 recognized sub-populations of polar bears, 8 are in decline, 1 is increasing, 3 are stable and 7 don’t have enough data to draw any conclusions.

[Michael Hardner]

No thank you. :angry:

In any case, my understanding is that the Polar Bear extinction thing HAS been overblown, so...

But, my God... Please.... Don't tell me I have to start looking into ANOTHER area of the GW debate.... please... no... I can't keep up with these threads as it is.

[eyeball]

I agree, pollution needs to be reduced. This I will never argue with. Every single person on this board can agree to reducing pollution over all. We just seemed to be focused on reducing a specific type which to me is a very narrow approach.

Narrow compared to the sliver of doubt that has nonetheless successfully derailed any action on climate change despite the broad consensus that exists that action is needed?

No matter how broad the consensus around reducing pollution is, when push comes to shove it won't stand a chance against the certainty that the economy must trump the environment, because we'll all be doomed should we ever put the economy 2nd.

The real lesson of the climate debate is how we've approached it.

[bush_cheney2004]

....I would hope that you would, as a smart poster, jump on those threads just as quickly in the interest of making a better board. You better be sure that I would do the same if I saw people posting blatant falsehoods, such as 9/11 denial etc.

Agreed...bullshit is bullshit, no matter who is shoveling the lot of it either way, and the "red herrings" have most certainly been bi-directional. That's another reason why I don't care either way....burn the mutha down!

[Michael Hardner]

burn the mutha down!

This is known as "argument by Parliament-Funkadelic".

[Saipan]

More often, we have deniers coming here and posting "what about the ice age scare ?" over and over.

Are you denying ice age scare again?

[Michael Hardner]

Are you denying ice age scare again?

Heavens, no. You use it over and over again, how could I deny that the 'ice age scare' happens on this board ?

[Saipan]

Narrow compared to the sliver of doubt that has nonetheless successfully derailed any action on climate change despite the broad consensus that exists that action is needed?

What climate change?

The real lesson of the climate debate is how we've approached it.

Let's start with the cute baby seals that the friggin' polar bears are murdering.