INFIDEL! Gaia and her "planet gestapo" are on their way...
Posted on 05/11/2007 12:17:33 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
UNITED NATIONS May. 10 (UPI) -- A former chief of the U.N. World Health Organization who also is a former prime minister of Norway and a medical doctor has declared an end to the climate-change debate. Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, one of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's three new special envoys on climate change, also headed up the 1987 U.N. World Commission on Environment and Development where the concept of sustainable development was first floated.
"This discussion is behind us. It's over," she told reporters. "The diagnosis is clear, the science is unequivocal -- it's completely immoral, even, to question now, on the basis of what we know, the reports that are out, to question the issue and to question whether we need to move forward at a much stronger pace as humankind to address the issues."
Brundtland was at U.N. World Headquarters in New York for the high-level segment of the Commission on Sustainable Development winding up Friday.
Opening that segment Wednesday, the secretary-general said climate change required sustained, concerted attention, as it had broad impact not just on the environment but also on economic and social development.
Ban said the world urgently needs to step up action to mitigate greenhouse-gas emissions. Industrialized countries need to make deeper emission reductions, and there should be further engagement of developing countries as well as incentives for them to limit their emissions while safeguarding economic growth and poverty eradication.
There is no doubt, Brundtland said, that climate change is manmade as reported by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Brundtland told the commission that 20 years ago, awareness had begun to grow that humans risked overstepping limits unless they adapted natural-resource usage to the planet's long-term carrying capacity.
The commission had concluded abject and endemic poverty, which degraded the environment, must be radically reduced, Brundtland said. Poverty is still the world's greatest challenge.
Significant numbers of the world's 6 billion people are dangerously short of food, water and security, she said. While many countries have experienced brisk economic growth, some in Africa are trapped in a vicious cycle with negative growth.
Access to safe drinking water in developing countries is increasing, and the millennium target of halving the number of people without access to potable water is within reach in Asia and to a lesser extent in Africa, she said.
Access to basic sanitation is increasing also, but not fast enough to achieve the U.N. Millennium Development Goal of halving by 2015 the number of people without basic sanitation services. Still, water scarcity, water pollution and overuse of groundwater resources are critical concerns in many countries, and even more threatening than climate change.
A "deep-rooted lack of trust" impedes global action to mitigate the negative impacts of climate change, she said. Many industrialized countries believe developing countries are doing little to address climate change.
"Many developing countries believe the industrialized world has defaulted on the promise of financial and technical assistance," Brundtland said. "Many countries are concerned with costs and competitiveness, and many are reluctant to undertake obligations that others will escape."
It is essential to build trust and find common ground, she said, noting that by 2050 greenhouse-gas emissions must be reduced much more drastically and rich countries must become carbon neutral.
Brundtland said really big investment would come when finance ministers and chief financial officers demand emission reductions because they are compelled to pay for their carbon dioxide emissions, adding that failing is not an option.
More than 90 government ministers took part in the effort to draft global policy measures that would foster socioeconomic development while cutting poverty, pollution and greenhouse-gas emissions, said Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah, chairman of the commission.
"It's not an easy job," said Attiyah, also Qatar's deputy prime minister and minister of energy and industry.
He said more than 2 billion people still lack access to electricity and that countries and regional blocs have conflicting energy agendas and solutions, including access to affordable energy and reliable, clean energy supplies.
Attiyah said energy use was expected to grow by 50 percent over the next 25 years, two-thirds of it in developing nations. Per capita energy consumption in developing countries is in some cases as low as one-fifteenth of that in developed countries, but industrial development and economic growth are fueling world energy demands.
It is, isn’t it?
Not even remotely.
Yet I`m still waiting for some evidence. So far all I`ve heard is that the CO2 percentage in the atmosphere has risen from 0.0383% (which you can literally call zero point zero) to 0.04% (which you can still call zero point zero). When the UN can explain to me how a non permanent necessary gas that basically has a value of zero can destroy the earth, then I`ll listen to the rest of their BS. But for now they should STFU and stop being the lapdog of a complete psychopath named Al Gore.
They're arguing with ya? Then just shut em up and shut em down!
This is such a crock. The biggest lie ever told.
But they told it often enough that it's now taken as truth by the weak minded.
I didn’t mean the debate is over on FR. That’s like saying the debate about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction is over — and I’m still running into people here who can’t accept they didn’t.
I’m talking about whether there’s an on-going debate amongst those who are best qualified to judge. Clearly Freepers, qua Freepers, don’t count. Heck it wouldn’t surprise me if the majority here thought we share no common ancestor with Apes.
To say the debate about global warming isn’t over so far as FR is concerned would be like saying there’s still a debate about astrology amongst those who attend new age lesbian Wiccan conventions where they all dance naked around the trees. Whereas you and I can agree, I hope, that lesbian Wiccans dancing naked around trees notwithstanding, the debate about astrology is nonetheless over.
“This is such a crock. The biggest lie ever told.”
Do you have similarly confident views about other issues scientists have recently been investigating and other theories scientists have recently been detating?
Do you have a confident view about String theory? Dark matter?
So which is it, are we supposed to use less energy, or do we need billions more people to consume electricity? Maybe it's just that we greedy Americans should use less so the poor third world can use more? This debate has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with international socialism. It's far from over.
“Yet I`m still waiting for some evidence. So far all I`ve heard is that ...”
What do you mean you’re still waiting for some evidence and so far all you’ve heard is ...
The published a detailed 250-some page report going over the evidence. What are you waiting for? Were you expecting them to mail you a copy? Come over to your house and read it to you?
Don’t blame them for your ignorance regarding the evidence. That’s asinine.
“This debate has nothing to do with climate change”
Oh. Well. In that case, let’s not talk about “this” debate.
Let’s you and I just talk about climate change instead.
You might as well bring up wormholes and alternate universes. I guess we stupid FReepers should just shup up about “scientific research” on human fetuses as well. Dr. Mengele was a scientist too, you know.
You first.
You’re the ignorant one. The study says that most climate change is not caused by man and that the temperature hasn’t even raised a single degree in the whole history of industrial civilization.
Just about everyone behind the global warming movement has watched way too much television in their lives. There's something about mindcontrol programming and TV watching that go hand in hand.
Scieintists paid by government and NGO funding are not honest brokers, independent observers and shouldn't be believed for one minute.
INFIDEL! Gaia and her "planet gestapo" are on their way...
“Apparently the UN doesn’t want anyone to question their religious faith any longer.”
If 100 years from now the arctic ice caps are still with us and have roughly the same mass they did in 2000, scientists will say “we were wrong about global warming”.
That’s one way to spot the difference between “religious faith” and science.
Thank goodness! I was getting pretty sick of it.
“Scieintists paid by government and NGO funding are not honest brokers, independent observers and shouldn’t be believed for one minute.”
Then stop driving your car. Never fly on a plane. And quit taking prescription drugs. Find some remote jungle area and build a little hut out of branches and leaves and forage for insects and berries, but don’t take a book with you to tell you which ones are good and which ones will kill you.
Otherwise you’re relying on the work of scientists paid by governments and NGO’s.
“Thank goodness! I was getting pretty sick of it.”
Me too.
“The debate is over only because their lies can’t be sustained under scrutiny.”
That’s such a confident view. How do you manage to aquire that kind of confidence about a scientific topic of such complexity?
It cracks me up how the Hollywood crowd and the goofball rats never figured out that the whole “global warming” scam was little more than rudimentary propaganda for anti-American, anti-capitalist Euro-socialist provocateurs.
Man, those “global warming” scumbags sure made complete fools out of a whole lot of people. But then, there’s never been a shortage of naive, malcontent imbeciles.
Thank God the debate is (finally) over.
Regards (and good night),
LH
What does a wage slave science jockey do for me when I'm driving my car to work? Don't start any long winded tripe either.
Islamofacist, meet Envirofacists. No wonder the UN loves terrorist states. No room for anything but tyranny and oppression, and religions based on lies, straight from the pits of hell.
You are wrong and stupid.
The irony is that these loony enviro-kooks are exactly the people who want us to stop driving cars altogether because they think the internal combustion engine is evil. “Science” my ass.
This discussion is behind us. It’s over,” she told reporters. “The diagnosis is clear, the science is unequivocal — it’s completely immoral, even, to question now, on the basis of what we know, the reports that are out, to question the issue and to question whether we need to move forward at a much stronger pace as humankind to address the issues.”
Wow, does anyone smell that? That foul stench? Man, what is that smell? Trying to figure out what it is... Oh wait. Its very familiar.....its the smell of communist B.S.
Even the scientists who were on the IPCC panel do not agree that the warming is anthropogenic.
Notice how in the movie “The day after tomorrow”, they only show America being destroyed (especially the heart of evil capitalism NYC) and directed by a German known for his anti-american socialist views.
The UN doesn't know the meaning of the word "immoral".
Otherwise you’re relying on the work of scientists paid by governments and NGO’s.
Wrong, engineers and technicians who work in the real world make those things happen, quite often in direct contradiction to the predicted "theory".
REALLY?? Then what did Saddam use to kill all those Kurds?? The evidence is absolute that Iraq DID have WMD. And the probability is quite high that they now reside in Syria.
And as to the debate on "global warming", call me when folks start farming in Greenland again.
Consistent Troll is more accurate. Change your name.
The debate IS over. The IPCC lost. Doesn’t stop them claiming victory though.
The Vostok ice-core data shows that changes in CO2 levels LAG temperature changes by 800 years. That’s it. Debate over. Why are we still talking about this?
it’s completely immoral, even, to question now
There you go. It’s immoral to even doubt the conclusion. I’m sure it will be hate speech soon to question the existence of -——umm, you know, the unmentionable.
Wow. Where did the UN find this genius ? Thats 58 words that state absolutely nothing. What the crap is she trying to say ? Can someone translate this to English for me ?
That is the truth. Al Gore and the rest try to look atone data point per million years and at that resolution it appears that CO2 and temp are directly related.
Increase the resolution of the data to say, 20 sample points per million years and we clearly see that CO2 lags temp by about 800 years. That PROVES beyond a shadow of a doubt that GW is NOT a function of CO2. In fact it would suggest the opposite.
Al and the UN should STFU
WOW! Those are some credentials to be a climate "expert". Guess we all better believe.
-Do you have similarly confident views about other issues scientists have recently been investigating and other theories scientists have recently been detating?
Do you have a confident view about String theory? Dark matter?-
A theory is just that. It is something that may be true and science then has to prove it is or is not. Both string theory and dark matter are just like global warming in that they are being discussed and tested. No one in their right mind would say those theories are set and no longer debatable. That is not science it is politics and dogma.
The cause of global warming is less certain than either of the two you mentioned because there is a historical record that shows it has happened before without mankind’s help. The problem with pinning any temperature rise on CO2 alone is you have too many other variables that can influence warming, many which might not even be identified since it has only been in the last 50 years that we had instruments to measure what we think we should be measuring. Plus, all the predictions are based on models. If you have enough of them ,the data will fit. That is found with stock market models.
So the debate cannot be ended unless it is no longer science. Theories should be debated until they are proved or disproved.
Personally, I am all for it because I look at the historical record and see a coming ice age. I prefer GW.
The UN said it. It must be so. (he said sarcastically)
Sorry, but scientists don't talk like this. Global Warming is a complex subject, and there a many unanswered issues. To say that the discussion is behind us implies that we already know everything that we need to know, which sure isn't true.
Where do these Gorite moonbats come from. Someone needs to stop turning over rocks.
To say that the debate is “over” is absurd. There are THOUSANDS of scientists who do not believe it. So just how can the debate be “over”???
There is a mountain of evidence that does not support the notion that man has caused global warming. So those who say the debate is “over” or that the science is “settled” are just chosing to ignore this evidence.
But let’s not let a little thing like “evidence” get in the way of good research!! If the data does not match one’s preconceived notion of the result, then throw out the data.
Must of this debate is based on numerical models that, at best, are worthless. We can barely forecast the weather accurately beyond 72 hrs. How can anyone believe a model that suggests the Earth’s temp will rise such-and-such amount THAT DOESN’T EVEN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WATER VAPOR OR CLOUDS????? Simple... they WANT to believe it.
We could park all the cars, planes, ships, shut down every single CO2 producing device and yet the temperature would continue to rise because it’s the sun causing the warming. That’s why the temp on Mars has also risen the same amount. Oh no.. it’s those little Rovers driving around on Mars that have produced all those greenhouse gases.
Give me a freaking break. The debate is over? It’s not even CLOSE to being over.
UN = Global headquarters of cafeteria free-for-alls
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.