Scientists Challenge UN and Gore

[Wild Bill]

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.

It is sad, Keeps! Am I the only one to have noticed that over the past few decades there has been a drastic change as to which pollution factors get any press?

Back in the 70's when the "Save the Planet" movement was just getting underway there was a strong focus on garbage, litter, clean water and pristine habitats for animals. We young folks often organized weekend "cleanup" events, where we would all gather in some park or wooded area that needed attention and clean it up ourselves. Re-forestation plantings were also common. My high school must have planted thousands of seedlings themselves.

Cleaning up toxins in the soil of urban brownfields costs governments money. CO2 schemes make money!

I haven't seen or heard anything like that for years now! It is gone like the dodo bird. All we hear is CO2 and the need for reductions. Actually, not even much about reductions. It's all about "cap and trade", which really is just a way to pay poor countries for the right to keep blowing CO2 into the air. There don't appear to be ANY reductions with such schemes!

How often do we even see a warning in the MSM about eating fish out of Lake Ontario? When's the last time you saw the word "dioxin"?

The only difference I can see is that it was difficult to make any money from cleaning up the land. CO2 schemes are different. They will make the Al Gores of this world very rich! They will also be a new tax on the working people of the western nations.

Not that it will bother us Canadians! We long ago accepted that our role in this universe is to pay taxes. We're very polite about it!

Looks like we're heading for a filthy planet with low CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Edited December 14, 2010 by Wild Bill

[eyeball]

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

Or drive it till it breaks.

[eyeball]

It is sad, Keeps! Am I the only one to have noticed that over the past few decades there has been a drastic change as to which pollution factors get any press?

Two explanations come to mind. First, the grass roots efforts to clean up our acts and raise awareness about carelessly throwing trash etc that you mentioned worked and had a lasting effect. Second, a lot of industrial pollution was simply exported overseas. It's still there and probably worse but we just don't see it anymore.

[lukin]

More on the Maurice Strong connection. Why doesn't anyone mention Mr. Strong's role in this whole climate scam?

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/30957

[Pliny]

More on the Maurice Strong connection. Why doesn't anyone mention Mr. Strong's role in this whole climate scam?

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/30957

I have brought his name up several times, as author of the Kyoto Accord, as a Canadian, and as a proponent of the UN and as an asshole.

[lukin]

I have brought his name up several times, as author of the Kyoto Accord, as a Canadian, and as a proponent of the UN and as an asshole.

You forgot to mention that he is the puppet master and architect behind this whole climate change scare, all for the benefit of China. Anyone who wants to know the truth about how this doom and gloom human-caused climate change got its roots, one needs to look no further than billionaire, Mr. Strong. Wyldo dangles from one of Maurice's strings, as do Al Gore and David Yamaha.

Ghosthacked, do some research on Maurice Strong and his role in climate change. Then and only then will you start to realize the origin of this BS that has duped millions.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250789,00.html

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/1/17/133225.shtml

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/ball-t4.1.1.html

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/30957

[Michael Hardner]

This is where the whole Climate Change skepticism really turns to denial and Climate Trutherism, a la 9/11.

No single human has the power to hijack academia, and every open discussion out there to perpetuate a lie on this scale. It's just silly to think so.

[Shwa]

Now many UN delegates have signed a petition to ban dihydrous monoxide, one of the chief ingrediants in acid rain, pollution, etc.

UN delegates sign petition to ban water

[Saipan]

Climate is changing.

Always will.

And here is the evidence.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image157.gif

[bloodyminded]

This is where the whole Climate Change skepticism really turns to denial and Climate Trutherism, a la 9/11.

No single human has the power to hijack academia, and every open discussion out there to perpetuate a lie on this scale. It's just silly to think so.

Agreed. The 9/11 Truthers, who at least contend a coterie of people directly involved, actually sounds more likely than this Master Puppeteer hypothesis. And that's saying something.

Desperation for a simple answer with an identifiable villain is seductive. But mistaken, as usual.

[Saipan]

How new religion was borne.

http://algorepictures.com/images/algore7.jpg

[Michael Hardner]

Climate is changing.

Always will.

What about that Ice Age ?

(Hint: Click the scary face for your answer)

Edited December 15, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Saipan]

What about that Ice Age ?

They will keep coming like a clock. Big and small. See Mini Ice Age and Interglacial periods.

We are now luckily in one of those (very short) Interglacial periods.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image158.gif

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image160.gif

[Bonam]

Now many UN delegates have signed a petition to ban dihydrous monoxide, one of the chief ingrediants in acid rain, pollution, etc.

UN delegates sign petition to ban water

This one's an oldie but a goodie. People always fall for it. That supposed climate scientists and other delegates do not know what the term "dihydrous monoxide" refers to does not speak well of their education or intelligence, however. It certainly sounds scary though when you talk about its negative effects:

Dihydrogen monoxide:

* is called "hydroxyl acid", the substance is the major component of acid rain.

* contributes to the "greenhouse effect".

* may cause severe burns.

* is fatal if inhaled.

* contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.

* accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.

* may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.

* has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

* as an industrial solvent and coolant.

* in nuclear power plants.

* in the production of Styrofoam.

* as a fire retardant.

* in many forms of cruel animal research.

* in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.

* as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.

[Michael Hardner]

They will keep coming like a clock. Big and small. See Mini Ice Age and Interglacial periods.

We are now luckily in one of those (very short) Interglacial periods.

Also, we are experiencing global warming, don't forget.

[Saipan]

Also, we are experiencing global warming, don't forget.

Your globe might. Ours doesn't

[Michael Hardner]

Your globe might. Ours doesn't

No, it actually is. Even skeptical climate scientists like Richard Lindzen acknowledge that.

You need to understand your limitations, in terms of understanding things and being overly suspicious of things.

Ok ?

[Wild Bill]

Now many UN delegates have signed a petition to ban dihydrous monoxide, one of the chief ingrediants in acid rain, pollution, etc.

UN delegates sign petition to ban water

Oh, you're just all wet!

[Saipan]

No, it actually is. Even skeptical climate scientists like Richard Lindzen acknowledge that.

He doesn't live here.

You need to understand your limitations, in terms of understanding things and being overly suspicious of things.

Do you?

[Michael Hardner]

Do you?

Yes.

[Saipan]

Then you should be able to read a thermometer. It's not a rocket surgery.

[bloodyminded]

Then you should be able to read a thermometer. It's not a rocket surgery.

If I'm misreading you, please explain....but are you suggesting that the ability to read a thermometer gives you all the knowledge you need to understand the climate change issue?

[Battletoads]

How many of them are from field in no way related to climate research?

[waldo]

How many of them are from field in no way related to climate research?

U.S. Republican Senator Inhofe and his sidekick Morano, have continued to bring these lists out every so often... an article that speaks to the first "400 list" - here. Of course, lil' lukin trotted out this same OP earlier in another thread post... he got no buy-in with that off-Broadyway attempt, so he opted to take it into it's own dedicated thread. As the article highlights, and as I said... lists dominated by non-scientists, charlatans, quacks, retirees, politically and conspiratorial motivated scientists and scientists not working in related fields. The breakout detail I reference was in relation to a comprehensive study that grouped one of the latter Inhofe/Morano lists into categories and actually attributed a basis for being on the list (based on past statements or position references)... of the actual scientists that had a scientific based rationale, none were actual climatologists and most worked in peripheral fields, at best. None of the arguments associated with this small(er) group can dispute consensus science.

There are becoming more and more scientists skeptical of the human factor. This is a great article.

wow! You actually are a neophyte... there's a veritable cottage industry out there that's refuted the previous Inhofe/Morano iterative and growing lists - from 400, to 650, to 700... to the moon!!! Google could save you additional embarrassment next time. I recall one of the more comprehensive efforts, after eliminating the obvious (re: non-scientists) and names that were improperly on the lists (re: protestations from named persons that arose after the fact), worked to categorize the names into a short summary basis... bringing forward, principally, 5 main groupings, 2 groupings that challenged

Data

and

Theory

(but, of course, the challenges couldn't stand the test of consensus science), 1 grouping that pleaded to the

Ignorance

of "we just don't know enough", and 2 that were totally outside the realm of science altogether, (

Political

and

Conspiracy

). Of course, the lists are weighted heavily in favour of persons not actually working directly in the related science fields... notwithstanding many 'retirees' no longer even active in science.

there's also a veritable cottage industry that's put together support for the scientific consensus... numerous previous MLW threads/posts have addressed this... links a plenty - MLW search is your friend.

lukin, I expect your only saving grace is you didn't trot out the "Oregon Petition".

[Saipan]

If I'm misreading you, please explain....but are you suggesting that the ability to read a thermometer gives you all the knowledge you need to understand the climate change issue?

No need, but you know when it's cold it's not warm, no matter who says it is.

It also helps if you grow some produce. You can't fool vegetation as easily as you can fool people who spend more time watching TV than they do watching nature. The vegetation doesn't listen to Al Gore or David Kawasaki.

Edited December 17, 2010 by Saipan