The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
10/16/2013 | Press release Panel of Scientists Says UN Study Retreats, Misleads, and Misinforms
CHICAGO - A panel of 50 scientists from 15 countries says the newest report on climate change from the United Nations is filled with concessions that its past predictions were too extreme and contains "at least 13 misleading or untrue statements and 11 further statements that are phrased in such a way that they mislead readers or misrepresent important aspects of the science."
The Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC, was created to act as an independent auditor of the work of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. NIPCC receives no government or corporate funding. Just weeks before the IPCC released its major report on September 27, NIPCC released its own 1,000-page report listing some 50 climate scientists as authors, contributors, or reviewers
While the IPCC reports growing confidence that climate change is man-made and likely to be harmful, NIPCC finds just the opposite: The human impact is likely to be very small, and a modest amount of warming would probably produce just as many benefits as costs. - See more at: http://www.noodls.com/view/AE9909D8A752A9669C61A00F6B8C1B7F2154EC4A#sthash.BXJ4i9QH.dpuf
10/16/2013 | Press release Panel of Scientists Says UN Study Retreats, Misleads, and Misinforms
CHICAGO - A panel of 50 scientists from 15 countries says the newest report on climate change from the United Nations is filled with concessions that its past predictions were too extreme and contains "at least 13 misleading or untrue statements and 11 further statements that are phrased in such a way that they mislead readers or misrepresent important aspects of the science."
As posted above: .02% Reject Man Made Warming
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming James Joyner · Friday, September 16, 2011 · 52 Comments
Ivar Giaever, the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, has resigned from the American Physical Society over its declaration that “global warming is occurring” and that “the evidence is incontrovertible.”
Fox News (“Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming“):
Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that “global warming is occurring.” The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man’s actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-over-global-warming/
Consensus science is the only REAL science. Global Warming is settled science. Scientists need to stop the inquiry into the matter and start promoting a carbon tax - there's a lot of revenue that can be generated.
Oh...and most importantly is a politicians opinion on global warming and their political party affiliation. Politicians elected by 51% of the 50% or less voter turnout is paramount to validating global warming science.
Media coverage on global warming has been criminally one-sided. The public doesn't know where the global warming theory came from in the first place. Answer: the U.N., not a scientific body. The threat of catastrophic warming was launched by the U.N. to promote international climate treaties that would transfer wealth from rich countries to developing countries. It was political from the beginning, with the conclusion assumed: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (U.N. IPCC) was funded to report on how man was changing climate. Its scientific reports have been repeatedly corrected for misrepresentation and outright fraud. http://www.americanthinker.com.....p;
Consensus science is the only REAL science. Global Warming is settled science. Scientists need to stop the inquiry into the matter and start promoting a carbon tax - there's a lot of revenue that can be generated.
Oh...and most importantly is a politicians opinion on global warming and their political party affiliation. Politicians elected by 51% of the 50% or less voter turnout is paramount to validating global warming science.
Yes, the politics... BTW, Dr. Ivar Giaever was a strong supporter of Barack Hussein Obama when he ran for US President in 2008!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Media coverage on global warming has been criminally one-sided. The public doesn't know where the global warming theory came from in the first place. Answer: the U.N., not a scientific body. The threat of catastrophic warming was launched by the U.N. to promote international climate treaties that would transfer wealth from rich countries to developing countries. It was political from the beginning, with the conclusion assumed: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (U.N. IPCC) was funded to report on how man was changing climate. Its scientific reports have been repeatedly corrected for misrepresentation and outright fraud. http://www.americanthinker.com.....p;
Who? The American Thinker??? WHo are they? "American Thinker is a daily conservative online magazinedealing with American politics, foreign policy, national security.
Oh.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
JUDITH CURRY: A professor and chairwoman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Because of her impressive resume, Curry was called to testify about man-made climate change before the U.S. House of Representatives last summer. According to NPR.org, her message that day on Capitol Hill was, in essence, that while humans may be contributing to climate change, we simply don't know how the climate will behave in the coming decades, so there may be no point in trying to reduce emissions. In her interview with NPR she explained that there is no way to predict how the climate will look in a few decades, and she is more concerned with the immediate economic impacts of climate change legislation on her six nieces and nephews who deserve an opportunity to build a sound and prosperous economic future. Read Judith Curry's interview on NPR.org.
DR. WILLIAM HAPPER: Award-winning Princeton Professor of Physics, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, author of over 200 published scientific papers, and a fellow of the American Physical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences. Happer was reportedly fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993 for failing to adhere to Gore’s scientific views. In 2009 he testified before Congress about CO2 levels:
“Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch) – 280 (parts per million - ppm) – that’s unheard of. Most of the time [CO2 levels] have been at least 1000 (ppm) and it’s been quite higher than that." LARRY BELL: professor and endowed professor at the University of Houston where he founded and directs the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and heads the graduate program in space architecture.
Bell is author of Climate of Corruption, Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax and a regular contributor to Forbes. He has written extensively about Agenda 21 and the threat that legislation aimed at stopping global warming and man-made climate change pose to U.S. sovereignty, American freedom and our way of life. In his article in Forbes entitled, Confessions of a Climate-Crisis Skeptic, Bell addresses the realities of climate variations.
RICHARD LINDZEN: Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, Professor Emeritus at MIT. Lindzen won numerous awards in the 1970’s for disproving an accepted theory about how heat moves around the Earth’s atmosphere. Accepted to the National Academy of Sciences before he was forty years old, he moved to MIT in the 1980’s. In the 1990’s he was invited to join the United Nations’ IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), where he helped to author a report in 1995 on climate change and co-authored chapter 7 of the 2001 report on climate change. Lindzen left the IPCC after he claims the panel rewrote his work, and while he does not dispute that people have some impact on the climate, he says that impact is very small.
RICHARD LINDZEN: Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, Professor Emeritus at MIT. Lindzen won numerous awards in the 1970’s for disproving an accepted theory about how heat moves around the Earth’s atmosphere. Accepted to the National Academy of Sciences before he was forty years old, he moved to MIT in the 1980’s.
The CATO INSTITUTE??? Are you serious??? Really Shadow... do you know who the CATO INST IS??? Try THE KOCH BROTHERS!!!
The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries.
The KOCH BROS are the politics and the $$$$$$ behind Climate Change Deniers!!!
As I've posted before Shadow: IF ALL YOU READ IS RIGHT WING BS ALL YOU'LL KNOW IS RIGHT WING BS!
Still LOL @ CATO INSTITUTE!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."
Such was originally published by Germany's NZZ Online Sunday, and reprinted in English by the Global Warming Policy Foundation moments ago:
(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.
(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.
(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.
(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.
(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."
Such was originally published by Germany's NZZ Online Sunday, and reprinted in English by the Global Warming Policy Foundation moments ago:
(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.
(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.
(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.
(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.
(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
Really Shadow... With every post you just prove my point... that Climate Change Deniers are a fully funded agent Right Wing Conservatives. You have yet to post from anything except RIGHT WING MEDIA!
Your last post is from "NewsBusters". Who are they? Just ask them... they'll tell you:
About NewsBusters.org Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.
About The Media Research Center The Media Research Center's mission is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. The MRC was founded on October 1, 1987 by L. Brent Bozell III, Leo Brent Bozell III is an American conservative writer and activist. Bozell is the founder and president of the Media Research Center, the Conservative Communications Center
How many times do I have to post it Shadow... IF ALL YOU READ IS RIGHT WING BS ALL YOU'LL KNOW IS RIGHT WING BS!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
I notice you never address the article just try to discredit the site that carries the story. How about answering the question that the same UN entity the IPCC that started the whole global warning scam has finally come clean that global warming is nothing but a wealth distribution scheme. This statement is a quote from one on the IPCC panel: (OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.
I notice you never address the article just try to discredit the site that carries the story. How about answering the question that the same UN entity the IPCC that started the whole global warning scam has finally come clean that global warming is nothing but a wealth distribution scheme. This statement is a quote from one on the IPCC panel: (OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.
OK, if those are your rules... Then I will post from a Al Sharpton, and you should treat it as if it were unbiased fact. I will post something from George Soros, and you must accept his words as if they came from a totally unbiased source. Everything that I post from Al Gore, you must believe as if it were from one of your Right Wing bat sh!t crazy sources.
Shadow, you are posting from the very SOURCE of Climate Change Denial... the Koch Bros.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
If the words written in the right leaning site as you call it, isn't true why hasn't (OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): sued the writer for liable. The UN is finally admitting the truth that climate change is about redistribution of wealth and has nothing to do with environment. I think that you're just not going to admit that you have been lied to and you believed every word.
Logged
