...Silly...??? ...Did someone say "Silly"...???
...You all remember the 'Poster Child'...for 'SILLY', don't you...???
Posted on 12/16/2004 11:28:49 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
The moderator of a panel discussion at the United Nations climate change conference here shut down questioning by a reporter who asked about disputed scientific claims regarding global warming, calling such questions "silly."
The panel discussion featured representatives of the Inuit people, who were announcing their intention to seek a ruling from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the United States "for causing global warming and its devastating impacts."
But when asked by CNSNews.com to defend the science behind the group's legal challenge, the moderator of the event cut off the reporter's questions and threatened "to put a stop to this."
CNSNews.com had asked the panelists about the scientific certainty that any potential warming in the Arctic is the fault of humans and specifically the fault of the United States.
The questions were predicated on temperature charts from a recently released report on Arctic warming and other data showing that surface temperatures in the Arctic in the early half of the 20th century were similar to present-day temperatures.
CNSNews.com asked Inuit panelists if these warmer Arctic temperatures in the first part of the 20th century had any disastrous impacts on the Arctic people.
"No it wasn't, [a disaster] no it wasn't at all," said Sheila Watt-Cloutier, the chairwoman of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, a United Nations-recognized, quasi-governmental group that is seeking a human rights declaration against the U.S.
Watt-Cloutier said the weather did not impact the Inuit people in any way in the 1930s, and she disputed the notion that today's Arctic weather is similar to that of the 1930s -- even though the data shows that surface temperatures back then were similar to today's Arctic temperatures.
Also asked by CNSNews.com how any potential melt of Greenland's ice shelf could create devastating climate and sea-level consequences when, according to multiple sources of available climate data, Greenland was warmer and had less ice during the Middle Ages than it currently has.
Watt-Cloutier responded, "I am not a scientist, so I can't give you any scientific responses to your question." But earlier in her presentation, Watt-Cloutier did present scientific analysis to bolster her group's legal complaint against the U.S.
"Melting of glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet can cause catastrophic interference with major ocean currents. Even moderate global warming scenarios are already having devastating impacts on the Inuit in the Arctic," Watt-Cloutier claimed earlier.
Panelist Paul Crowley, legal council for the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, said the Arctic region has not seen anything like the current and projected warming trends for "thousands of years."
Donald Goldberg, the moderator, added, "The conclusions of the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) are very clear; they attribute this to greenhouse gas emission resulting in global warming."
Goldberg is the senior attorney for the Center for International Environmental Law, the group that is helping the Inuit people file their complaint against the U.S.
CNSNews.com asked again whether the panelists would acknowledge scientific reports that Greenland was warmer during the Middle Ages and had less ice cover than it has currently.
But Goldberg interrupted, saying, "This is not a scientific event...as the moderator, I am going to put a stop to this.
"I have already put an end to this discussion, it is silly and it has nothing to do with what we are here to talk about," he added.
Goldberg then called for more "productive" questions.
A woman later took to the microphone and declared that the Inuit people's complaint against the U.S. was "not about the science, but it's about what is happening to human beings, and I think the U.S. has to start taking off its blinders."
Jennifer Morgan of the environmental group WWF told the panel, "The fact that you are getting the types of questions that you are getting shows how powerful this [effort to file charges against the U.S.] is." "This will make government and businesses stand up and take notice," Morgan said.
After the panel discussion, several audience members angrily approached this reporter and accused him of acting "disrespectful" to the Inuit people.
Comments 'not helpful'
Before the question-and-answer session, several of the panelists singled out global warming skeptics and made derisive comments.
During her original presentation, Watt-Cloutier held up a CNSNews.com article on Arctic melting that was published earlier this week. She ridiculed a passage quoting Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market environmental group. Watt-Cloutier was incensed by Ebell's comment that potentially rising temperatures in the Arctic region may have some benefits.
"If global warming in the Arctic is such a problem, why do 80 percent of Canadians live within 50 miles of the U.S. border?" Ebell asked rhetorically earlier this week. "If Canada warmed up a bit they might be able to live in more of their own country," Ebell, who is attending the UN conference, told CNSNews.com.
Watt-Cloutier told the crowd at the panel discussion, "Comments like this are not helpful to the situation because it invisibilizes (sic) so many of us who live in the Arctic and sub-Arctic. So it may be a little funny to me, but it's still not helpful in invisibilizing the situation for us."
Following the event, Ebell responded to Watt-Cloutier's comments. "She was correct in saying my statement sounded flippant," Ebell conceded. But Ebell did not back down from his critique of Watt-Cloutier's efforts, disputing her group's linking of science and climate "models."
"Models are not scientific evidence; there is no way to prove a model. If something is a scientific fact, it means you can test it to find out whether it's true or false. There is no way to test these models -- to check if there a predicted effect will happen in the future," Ebell said.
"That isn't scientific evidence -- that is just making things up" he added.
Watt-Cloutier and Goldberg also singled out the George Marshall Institute, a science policy group, for opposing their climate complaint against the U.S.
Goldberg called the Marshall Institute "a pretty radical opponent of the work that we are trying to do here."
"But if anything indicates a little progress here, it's how desperate these people are becoming because they see that they really are losing the scientific argument, that they can't sustain the position that they have been taking," Goldberg said.
William O'Keefe of the Marshall Institute denied he was acting desperate and once again refuted the climate conclusions that the Inuit group are using as the basis for its complaint against the U.S. (The George Marshall Institute recently released a study taking a skeptical view of alarmist global warming.)
"Between 1900 and 1940, the amount of temperature increase in the Arctic was about the same as the increase in temperature from the mid-70s until today," O'Keefe said.
"[The Inuit people] are being led to believe that it is human activity that is causing any problems they may be having, but there is no basis for that conclusion," he added.
Man, it sure is tough being a leftist these days. Gotta back your bulls**t with facts n' stuff.
If a private company had done this, they would be guilty of at least misrepresentation, and possibly false advertising.
I always knew there was a reason my ancestors on my mother's Mic Mac side used to kill the Innuit on sight...
What's silly is to see hundreds of adults playacting at being serious about the end of the world.
"I have already put an end to this discussion, it is silly and it has nothing to do with what we are here to talk about," he added.
...
"But if anything indicates a little progress here, it's how desperate these people are becoming because they see that they really are losing the scientific argument, that they can't sustain the position that they have been taking," Goldberg said.
What a horse's rectum. He stops scientific discussion, and then claims that the skeptics are losing the scientific debate. LOL
Thanks.
I'd ask: "If your igloos are melting, build a better igloo."
Better yet, if it's gettin' hot up there, build wood houses, plant coconut trees and sell suntan lotion to tourists sunning themselves.
Bet you my dollar to your dime that these eskimoes are getting pay under the table from Tides to make noises. I'd watch this Sheila Watt-Cloutier character to see if she buys an SUV and builds a four bedroom, two bath McMansion in Toronto.
There's enough earl up there to generate the revenues to build an indoor Las Vegas. Drill!
Wow, Chad. You have an interesting family.
A little tribal tension huh...The inuit had a nasty habit of putting fingerless/thunbless gloves on their captives...that way they couldn't grab the spears or ulu's out of the inuits hand...I've heard the same stories from my west coast native friends that lived further north...
The United States is being set up for crucifiction. That is why we are being isolated and demonized by the actual demons who plot our demise.
The scientists behind the global warming sham, are no more scientific than the evil sorcerers of other times.
Nothing like "tolerant" liberals shutting down dissent. They don't even welcome a debate.
BTTT!!!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.