Posted on 10/03/2013 9:11:13 PM PDT by lbryce
Original Title:What climate Change Skeptics Think About the UN Report
Last week, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change went further than it ever has in blaming humans for the role in climate change in its fifth report, warning that the warming is happening faster, and will only get worse.
“Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions,” said Thomas Stocker, a Working Group co-chair. “As a result of our past, present and expected future emissions of [carbon dioxide], we are committed to climate change, and effects will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 stop.”
But has the new report changed the mind of any of the leading climate change skeptics? FRONTLINE asked several for their thoughts. Here’s what two of them told us:
“The global warming establishment is in denial,” said Myron Ebell, director of Freedom Action and the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “The IPCC summary is merely further evidence of this denial of reality. They are living in cloud-cuckoo land or, perhaps more accurately (to switch to a more modern satirist), they are remarkably similar to the projectors in Gulliver’s third voyage.”
He added: “Nothing the IPCC can claim at this point can change the debate, which is over: global warming may become a problem at some point in the next fifty or a hundred years (although the chances are slim), but global warming is not a crisis.”
Christoper Monckton at the Science and Public Policy Institute slammed the IPCC, saying “Set against real-world observations and problems, the IPCC process has become a costly, self-indulgent, self-centered, self-serving, selfish organized-crime racket.”
He added: “However many lies the IPCC and the mad governments who back it tell, the truth remains unaltered and unalterable. Man’s influence on the climate is puny and will remain puny. … The science is in; the truth is out; Al Gore is through; Green stocks are down; the game is up; the panic is off; and the scare is over.”
In Climate of Doubt, FRONTLINE explored how a small cadre of skeptics, including Ebell and Monckton, began working to challenge the science behind climate change. The film reveals how climate skeptics mobilized, built their argument, and undermined public acceptance of a global scientific consensus.
It started in 1998, when the then-chief executive of ExxonMobil, Lee Raymond, decided to take on not only the business, but the science on climate change. Exxon began funding groups to explore his theory, including the Global Climate Science Team, which drew up a national plan to challenge global warming science.
“Victory will be achieved when … average citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the “conventional wisdom,” the team wrote.
They’ve had some success. Most Americans — more than six in 10 — do not think global warming is an imminent threat, according to a poll conducted earlier this year.
In the film, FRONTLINE correspondent John Hockenberry asks Ebell about the potential consequences of their work.
Beyond Incredulous, that the AGW crowd has engaged in a conspiracy of the unscientific, proof of which has them being caught red-handed time and time again, now has them regaling the gullible of how the AGW skeptics having utilized trickery, demagoguery, who knows, may have been witchcraft as well, in the promotion of their new documentary "exposing" the conspiracy of anti-AGW skeptics in convincing the public that AGW is a lie.
In Climate of Doubt, FRONTLINE explored how a small cadre of skeptics, including Ebell and Monckton, began working to challenge the science behind climate change. The film reveals how climate skeptics mobilized, built their argument, and undermined public acceptance of a global scientific consensus.
That there is no discourse regarding the validity of global warming in any way, just repeating the UN's report in rote-like manner, dismissive of any one not being the most zealous of believers in tooth-fairy fashion, shows liberalism at its most abjectly pretentious, their intellectual arrogance that they know what's best for you oozes out of every one of their unctuous pores.
The article isn't about global warming per say, the details s uncovered by AWG "experts, the ramifications of the rise in global temperature on every aspect existing on the planet, just only approaching the issue in an US vs THEM arena.
Reading the story, you get a palpable sense of just how convoluted, stricken these people are, their way of thinking having you see them as some lower from of life.
Global warming is a hoax.
If I can get a “scientific” consensus to say my dog’s mess is actually gold, I’ve got it made!
4 billion years of natural climate change can’t be denied. Prepare for the eventual climate change that will happen. Don’t waste money trying to stop climate change, it will always be unstoppable. Use this planets resources wisely. Develop new energy systems that produce less pollution. Quit trying to reverse 200 years of pollution. It’s a waste of resources.
What’s AWG?
Gas stations across America should have a separate Global Warming button that the freaks can push. It should add 25 cents per gallon to make them feel all warm and fuzzy.
Ah, the hoax deniers are squeaking. High time. BTT
Anthropogenic Global Warming
Human made climate change
Wouldn’t that be AGW?
CO2 is less than 1 tenth of 1 percent of the total atmosphere.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
What do they have for proof? Computer models that anyone who bothers to think about and understands computer programs will realize can be written to produce whatever result the program writer desires. The initial assumptions or the formulae written in to the model can produce whatever end result is predetermined by the designer.
Selection of data can also be used to cant the results of a computer model. This has been as I recall the chosen tool for predetermining the results for the AGW scammers because it is more subtle.
For me the AGW emperors have no cloths. They have little proof to substantiate their extraordinary claims.
I meant to post the letters 'AGW', which seemingly once upon a time was used by skeptics to mean Anti-Global-Warming, as my fading memory has me recall. But doing research for 'AGW' I was unable to find the acronym 'AGW' anywhere to mean Anti-Global Warming. So 'AGW', by my convoluted circumlocution, was meant as 'Anti Global Warming' even though I can't verify that it was ever used that way.
Once again, I apologize for my sloppiness, lack of being more meticulous about the way I posted the title.
American Wire Guage.
Wow! Thanks so very much. So despite my recent post, I was correct after all. Gotta make note of it.
Thanks again very much.
You should be taken out and dismembered for that....
;^)
I’ve already been dis-membered by a run-in with a lawn mower as a young boy.
Oh! Uh, sorry. That turned out rather poorly....
It seems today wasn’t much of a banner day of postings at FR.:-(
Oh, I wouldn’t say that. Jim had a surgery today, and it appears to have turned out well. Many prayers answered.
AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming
CAGW = Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming
CACA = Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism
The last one, with its double entendre, serves as a reminder of the weakness of the science behind the promotion of the man made global warming scare.
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.