epw.senate.gov — The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
Dec 10, 2008 View in Crawl 4
wunkstaDec 11, 2008
humans are incapable of obtaining absolute truth i believe, we can only collect evidence for what is likely to be occurringthe ocean is a carbon sink, thats already been shownincreasing the amount of carbon it takes in causes an abundance of carbonic acid, thats already been showncarbonic acid causes acidification which leads to certain species being unable to copeis this too hard to grasp? we are doing things that are affecting the environment. to think otherwise is to be ignorant of the evidence
monoaDec 11, 2008
The point being [whoooosh] that I don't base my scientific understanding on a photograph.You can pontificate on the scientific method all you want, but you need to demonstrate that you understand it. The evidence for that is sorely lacking.
greenfyreDec 11, 2008
Did I make any reference to them? or anything they said?
morganmgheeDec 12, 2008
Deniers like Inhofe have a serious media problem ? an ever growing number of studies, real world observations, and credible scientific bodies all point to human-caused emissions as the increasingly dominant cause of planetary warming and dangerous climate change.What?s a denier to do? The answer is simple: Repackage previously debunked disinformation, release it as a ?new? so-called ?Full Senate Report? full of hysterical headlines, push it through right-wing news outlets, and hope the traditional media bites. Why not? It worked before.Yes, it is tiresome debunking such nonsense for the umpteenth time, so let me try to keep this as short as possible.SEA LEVELS ARE STILL RISING MORE THAN 50% FASTER NOW THAN PRE-1990THE SUN PLAYS ONLY A SMALL ROLL IN RECENT WARMING FORGET PADDED, LAUGHABLE LISTS: SCIENCE, NOT SCIENTISTS, TELLS US HUMANS ARE WARMING THE PLANET DANGEROUSLYI?m not certain a dozen on the list would qualify as ?prominent scientists,? and many of those, like Freeman Dyson ? a theoretical physicist ? have no expertise in climate science whatsoever. I have previously debunked his spurious and uninformed claims, although I?m not sure why one has to debunk someone who seriously pushed the idea of creating a rocket ship powered by detonating nuclear bombs! Seriously.<a class="user" href="http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/11/inhofe-morano-recycles-long-debunked-denier-talking-points-will-the-media-be-fooled-again">http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/11/inhofe-moran ...</a>
stopthelieDec 12, 2008
@VikingCoder, I appreciate you listing the two statements you found objectionable (regarding “vapid political conspiracies.”) That said, I don’t think you have to look any further than the NeoCon’s “war on terror” to see politicians / bureaucrats “hyping threats” to justify seizing power and profit for themselves. You might not agree that those seeking to establish global government are using “Global Warming” as a means to an end, but I don’t believe my question (regarding the possibility) qualifies as “vapid.” I have read conflicting reports regarding the atmospheric concentrations of C02 that are directly attributable to man’s activity. (The 120 PPM you’ve suggested is the highest I’ve seen, zero is the lowest I’ve seen.) I think we can both agree that “the truth” can be found somewhere in between.(Fair enough?) This still does not change the basic premise of my argument. (By the way, thank you for addressing / acknowledging that C02 levels could rise again, regardless of human activity, if the “natural processes” cease to be a “net absorber” of C02.)Let’s say that human beings decide that anything above 350 PPM in the atmosphere is unacceptable. Further, we’ll assume that we can cut 50% of the 120 PPM that you have suggested we’re responsible for. Using that as a base, we’re looking at about a 15% reduction in atmospheric C02. What can we do to ensure the earth does not violate the C02 limit we’ve imposed? If the answer is “nothing,” then that answer holds regardless of whether we cede our sovereignty to a new “supra-national” government entity or we don’t. It holds whether we give them the ability to “tax our carbon emissions” or we don’t. –It holds whether we hand over hundreds of billions of dollars per year (to be divvied out among the well-connected) or we don’t. As I’ve made clear, I just don’t see the justification for warnings of “mass extinction” based on the current level of C02 in the atmosphere. The timeframe you’ve given for 10 x and 20 x fluctuations isn’t really relevant here. –If anything over “350 PPM” is critical, then a far smaller fluctuation of 100 PPM will “wipe us out.” (It doesn’t sound reasonable to me given earth’s history of much higher concentrations.)
wunkstaDec 16, 2008
"When “experts / authorities” use their power & influence to threaten, ostracize, punish, or silence dissenting voices, that (historically) has been a reliable sign that they’re after something more than “the full truth.” "So, if there is anything we should “avoid at all costs” it’s allowing others to rush us into “solutions” that create new problems (at great expense) without solving the initial problem. (Assuming of course the “initial problem,” as it was presented, was anything more than a means to an end.)"i completely agree but usually this is because of politicians and not the scientists themselves.