Posted on 12/08/2007 7:22:30 PM PST by ricks_place
(CHICAGO, Illinois - December 5, 2007) -- The United Nations has rejected all attempts by a group of dissenting scientists seeking to present information at the climate change conference taking place in Bali, Indonesia.
The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) has been denied the opportunity to present at panel discussions, side events, and exhibits; its members were denied press credentials. The group consists of distinguished scientists from Africa, Australia, India, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
The scientists, citing pivotal evidence on climate change published in peer-reviewed journals, have expressed their opposition to the UN's alarmist theory of anthropogenic global warming. As the debate on man-made global warming has been heating up, the UN has tried to freeze out the scientists and new evidence, summarily dismissing them with the claim "the science is settled."
James M. Taylor, senior fellow for The Heartland Institute explained, "It is not surprising the UN has completely rejected dissenting voices. They have been doing this for years. The censorship of scientists is necessary to promote their political agenda. After the science reversed on the alarmist crowd, they claimed 'the debate is over' to serve their wealth redistribution agenda."
Taylor continued, "For example, ICSC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray recently published Unsound Science by the IPCC, which proves the main claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are scientifically unsound. Dr. Gray is an expert reviewer for the IPCC and has submitted more than 1,800 comments on IPCC reports. He is an expert on the IPCC methodology and published Spinning the Climate.
"Dr. Gray is the last person the politicized UN wants speaking," Taylor noted. "He single-handedly debunks the entire alarmist theory. And there are more than 600 Dr. Grays trying to be the voice of reason and science. All are being censored."
Tayor said, "The ICSC scientists don't agree with the pre-determined 'Bali Mandate,' so instead of discussion and debate, we get censorship. Until the UN rejects the politicization of climate change, their reports, protocols, and mandates aren't worth reading--much less ratifying."
The ICSC scientists will be available for advice and counsel in Bali, but they expect scientists to be ignored at the Bali conference.
They are H€LL BENT on creating a WORLD SOCIALIST COMMUNITY ruled by the UN, paid for by the west and the USA in particular.
They are in a hurry to pull it off before the facts get in the way.
If people want on or off this list, please let me know.
#35 Interesting post.
*bump*
Very interesting, though I wish that site had footnotes/links to some of those claims
I agree with much of what the Heartland Institute generally has to say, but let’s face it—they are a tobacco and oil mouthpiece. How much did Exxon give last year? With all due respect, I wouldn’t take my scientific news from them any more than from the UN. As to Vince Gray, he gets marched out every year, and attacks the process, but offers nothing else. Let’s assume the IPCC is flawed, and that Al Gore is a hack, and that many global warming “scientists” have bias. All very true. Does that mean there is no greenhouse effect? Does it mean we haven’t increased carbon in the trophosphere by 40%. Does it mean the temperatures are not rising? Does it mean we shouldn’t at least be somewhat concerned about the increase in greenhouse gases? Again, the only true non-bias experts are the insurance industry. There is a reason they won’t insure coastal properties, and are pushing for ghg restrictions.
Funding by Exxon does not taint an organization; that leftist (non)thinking is manure. Neither the Heinz fortune nor the Soros octopus offers support to the Heartland Institute.
...I wouldn’t take my scientific news from...
Please try thinking rather than taking your views from any particular organization. The post involved the Blackballing of dissenting scientist by the IPCC not a particular science view.
..Does that mean there is no greenhouse effect?Does it mean we haven’t increased carbon in the trophosphere by 40%. Does it mean the temperatures are not rising?
Not likely a man-made temperature rise. You have mistaken correlation with causation. Your Science Grade is a D.
Does it mean we shouldn’t at least be somewhat concerned about the increase in greenhouse gases?
The actual climate measurements do not agree with the climate models. The IPCC chooses to believe the most dire climate models over actual data. Kyoto compliance is very expensive and any future treaty compliance will be astronomically expensive. Just sending 15,000 people to Bali is a poor way to spend tax dollars. The appropriate action and low cost solution is 1)continue monitoring the actual climate and 2)continue funding climate modeling. The global hustlers can go find a new gig. Your Economics Grade is a D+.
...the only true non-bias experts are the insurance industry. There is a reason they won’t insure coastal properties...
Insurance companies are not unbiased; they act in self-interest! At one time the US Atlantic and Gulf coasts (pre-Global Warming term - Hurricane Alley) had limited economic development. After much promotion and much development the coastal areas grew plenty. Almost anywhere a hurricane hits will cost zillions and hurricanes are always gonna be coming. The insurance companies were hit big by a few unlucky strikes and learned a very harsh lesson in Risk Analysis(New Orleans is below sea level). The premiums are not high enough to compensate for the newly appreciated Risk and those markets will be exited. Global Warming is a convenient excuse to grease that skid. Your Business Grade is F. Go read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.
Are you saying that you don’t consider funding when you evaluate a source? That explains a lot.
I said take news, not take views. I have read hundreds of articles, interviewed NOAA representatives, a Republican Senator, Inuit hunters, attended a George Will lecture...all because I wanted to draw my own conclusion. So you can drink the koolaid, or we can honestly debate—but don’t accuse me of not thinking.
Rise in CO2 is not anthropogenic? Even Exxon would disagree with you there. Strange how you, with your open mind and all, can’t even answer the questions.
Did I say I support Kyoto? No I didn’t, and no I don’t so you can put that argument away. And I agree models are useless, but so what, actual temperatures are increasing. Do you deny that?
As to insurance companies, you made my point. Their success relies upon risk assessment. Unlike a scientist who wants to keep a job, or an energy company which wants sell product, it is in their interest accurately assess exposure. Why do you think Florida now has socialized property insurance? Because insurers won’t write it. If you knew anything about insurance, you would know that they don’t trust the old models anymore. Your conclusion that they are exiting coastal locations because they figured out New Orleans is below sea level, doesn’t even pass the straight face test. How do you think that conversation went? “Hey Bob, did you know New Orleans is below sea level?” “No Joe, I didn’t know that—we better stop writing business in Florida.”
Atlas Shrugged is my favorite book. Bioshock is my favorite videogame. You don’t have to be anti-business, or support Kyoto, or like Al Gore, or be a moonbat to be concerned about what CO2 may be doing to surface temperatures. Ask George Pataki, Bill Crist, Arnold, McCain and the growing list of Republicans.
Let’s face it, you brought a knife to a gunfight. You might want to bring a friend next time.
Try looking at what I actually posted rather than constructing your straw-man argument. Your interview with an Eskimo has no relevance. George Will is a political commentator not a source. Draw your own global warming conclusions but keep an open mind.
Rise in CO2 is not anthropogenic? Try reading what was posted. "Not likely a man-made temperature rise." Some evidence has been reported that increased CO2 levels follow increased temperatures.
...actual temperatures are increasing. Do you deny that? I deny it three times before the cock crows. Temperature history must be reconstructed by proxy and not actual measurements; current measurements are plagued by poor weather station siting, poor maintenance, and questionable data manipulation. Recently, the record was corrected and moved many "highest temperature years" from the 1990s to the 1940s.
As to insurance companies, you made my point. NOT! At one time the US Atlantic and Gulf coasts (pre-Global Warming term - Hurricane Alley) had limited economic development. Its not global warming; Increased Coastal Development makes any hurricane hit potentially a catastrophic loss for insurance companies. Insurance companies and reinsurance companies came to grips with the risk of insuring coastal areas after big losses. Your straw-man construction and ad hominems are unnecessary.
Politicians, Democrat and even Republican, will jump on an oncoming freight train rather than get run over. Global Warming is that freight train. Just cause they drink the koolaid doesn't mean you should drink it.
Gunfight? What are you, wacked?
The entire “Global Warming” debate evolves from this quote 18 years ago, after the fall of the Soviet Bloc:
“We must embrace Environmentalism, for Socialism to survive”- Hans-Jochen Vogel, Chairman of the West German Social Democratic Party-1989
Gorbachev said in 1987 that ENVIRONMENTALISM would be the vehicle for Socialist control of the world.
The Religion of Climate Change is simply a means to that end...
Uh, we've got insurance on our family's Gulf coast beach house. Dad gripes more about the rising HOA assessments than he does about insurance costs. I think the insurance is only a little more than our house in Dallas and the beach house is worth more.
Have you got a linked source for these? Pleeease!
Do you consider funding when you evaluate a source? You point out that the IPCC is bias—but what’s your point? I said in my first post, I don’t look to the UN as a trustworthy source.
My point about George Will is that he is one of the few national commentators (along with Bob Novak and John Stoessel) who still dispute climate change. I respect those guys so I went to hear Will speak—although I ultimately disagreed with him, I listened carefully to his perspective. I also watched (and disliked) the Gore movie to get his view.
My time with the Inuit in the Arctic has relevance to me, in that it provided small pieces to the puzzle. My point is not that my anecdotal evidence solves the problem, it was that despite your assertion that I have a closed mind, I have gone to great lengths to apply independent judgment.
You are right that temperature increase often proceeds carbon increase. They have a symbiotic effect as a result of positive feedback loops. Sometimes carbon starts the process.
I am surprised that you don’t believe in the greenhouse effect. What’s your explanation as to why the average temperature on earth is not -4F? You do realize that without a greenhouse gas effect it would be kind of chilly?
Weather has been measured since at least 1850. Claiming that temperatures have not increased since then is the modern day equivalent of saying smoking is good for the lungs. Come on, nobody still claims the surface of the planet is not heating up. As to the three times before the cock crows reference, as I remember it, those denials weren’t in good faith either.
Insurance companies put their money where their mouth is. If they say there is climate change, and invest billions into mitigation campaigns, and exit coastal markets, I am going to factor that in my decision. Your notion that they just discovered the possibility of storms along the coasts has me in stitches.
As to the gunfight reference it was a metaphor. Linear thinkers aren’t so good with metaphors, so I understand how you missed it.
Uh, yeah between government controls and the Comrads, I mean Citizens, Insurance Company run by the state of Florida—and subsidized by noncoastal homeowners—rates are controlled. Socialized Insurance—a system only Dad and Hillary could love.
~~Anthropogenic Global Warming ™ ping~~
“Global warming” hoax BUMP!
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.