Thread: UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History'

'No evidence for accelerated sea-level rise'

Link to Intro and full report:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 9faf4dcdb7


POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 4616db87e6

The debate is hotting up - and that is truly man made!

Now this shows you that all this hype about global warming being man made is propaganda!

When the pendulum swings the other way, towards a win for those with common sense and the ability to look at the issue aside from political motivations, where can the brunt of the credit be placed? Internet or talk radio?

This is a big issue and without the alternative medias would this debate have just steamrolled over science?

The whole world was getting wrapped up in this debate and it may and should be proved as nothing more than political propaganda. Think about the implications of this when the internet is included into the mix for information that has helped to keep the debate alive, as the MSM surely has done nothing to deliver a balanced debate. Hollywood along with the elite MSM and all of the feel good, mush mellon, dope smoking, commie-wanna-bees, self described intellectually superior politically bent pansies, pink underwear wearing, totestorone lacking, self castorated, dress wearing weirdos, mamby pamby liberal so-and-so's, have stuck their neck on the block with inadequate information, just large amounts of emotions being tugged on by greedy elitists like Al Gore and the UN! Like sheep to slaughter!

The UN stuck it's neck out on the block also! The ramifications could be huge.

Even one of the founders of Green Peace did not like the way the politicalization of this issue was headed, as he understood the ramifications if the science did not make the case on merit absent the political propaganda or the emotional desires of the commie dope smoking so called enviromentalists. Talk about blowing the ship out of the water!

In the future will the political classes have to guard their agendas more closely and implement their desires during the night or with the threat of insuing calamities to keep the governed from entering and countering debates? Much like the current debate concerning the bail-outs? As information flows faster and more freely what will the political class of elites do to counter?

Originally Posted by roundabout

As information flows faster and more freely what will the political class of elites do to counter?

Most likely they will attempt to silence the opposition like with the "Fairness Doctrine" on talk radio and some kind of censorship of the internet as well.

The problem is the environmentalist wackos want to do all this economic damage to limit CO2 emissions.

First of all, climatological data going back over 800 million years show that increases in CO2 FOLLOW increases in climate. The cause cannot precede the effect, therefore CO2 DOES NOT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING. So doing all this economic damage to limit CO2 emissions is criminal.

Secondly, global warming, if it exists, is not man-made. Man's effect on the global climate is insignificant. The Earth has been oscillating back and forth between warmer and colder for billions of years before humans even existed. We are currently in an inter-glacial period in which global temperatures usually rise. Here's an image showing temperatures for the last 18,000 years:



Notice the long-term trend since the end of the last ice age, around 14,000 years ago has been up. Also note that between 8,000 and 4,000 years ago, it was warmer than now. Not too many people driving SUVs or coal-fired power plants back then.

Thirdly, who's to say that the climate we have right now is the best? There was a period from 5,000 to 3,000 BC called Climatic Optimum in which temperatures were perhaps 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. Great ancient civilizations began and flourished. From 1100 to 1300 AD there was a period called the Little Climatic Optimum or Medieval Optimum that was the warmest climate since the Climatic Optimum, Vikings established settlements on Greenland and Iceland. Crops flourished and people prospered.

patbrunz wrote,

"The problem is the enviromental wackos want to do all of this economic damage"

Should the enviromental wackos all be bundled together?

Hind sight being 20/20,....

If we accept that 99% of the enviromental wackos, and those that disagree with global warming as caused by mankind, are indeed in the same camp, that camp being, consumers of the news,....then,....

If 1% generates the news and 99% consume the news, we can then draw lines for debate, divide and consume,....into two seperate camps.

The consumers of the various means of information thrown out into the mix, reinforced by Hollywood stars and other personalities in positions of various authorities, not remotely even qualified to bring forth scientific evidence make for much fluff and fodder.

Was this all an exercise in futility? Fluff and fodder to occupy some of the discressionary time of the masses, reinforcing the idea of participation in our collective governance and mankinds future?

This debate started decades ago. Our economic situation started about the same time. Global warming is by it's very nature a much more sexy topic to talk about opposed, to the economy.

I have not done this on paper and am going to just throw this out there,....more fodder.

If one would draw two graphs, one representing the global warming debate and the other the world economy starting back at 1980 or so.

If in 1980 the debate starts and is graphed and we notice a gentle line gaining in a slight but steady rise headed towards present then we notice a hockey stick pattern starting to emerge due to a sudden hightened period of exposure, the climax.

If we draw a graph for the economy starting in 1980 would the graph look simular? A hockey stick pattern.

Hind sight being 20/20, would we have not been better off paying attention to the hockey stick graph of the economy as opposed to the hockey stick pattern of the global warming debate?

Sex sells!

JMHO reinforced with biased views!