A panel of climate change experts calling itself the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) this week released a report that competes head-on with the Summary for Policymakers of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The group’s name highlights the fact that, contrary to common perceptions that it is an objective body of scientists, the IPCC comprises not only scientists, but also government bureaucrats and policy shapers, and its Summary for Policymakers reflects strong political biases.Â The report concludes:
Our findings, if sustained, point to natural causes and a moderate warming trend with beneficial effects for humanity and wildlife. This has obvious policy implications: Schemes proposed for controlling CO2 emissions, including the Kyoto Protocol, proposals in the U.S. for federal and state actions, and proposals for a successor international treaty to Kyoto, are unnecessary, would be ineffective if implemented, and would waste resources that can better be applied to genuine societal problems [Singer, Revelle and Starr 1991].
Even if a substantial part of global warming were due to greenhouse gases (and it is not), any control efforts currently contemplated would give only feeble results. For example, the Kyoto Protocol (even if punctiliously observed by all participating nations) would decrease calculated future temperatures by only 0.02 degrees C by 2050, an undetectable amount.
In conclusion, this NIPCC report falsifies the principal IPCC conclusion that the reported warming (since 1979) is very likely caused by the human emission of greenhouse gases. In other words, increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible for current warming. Policies adopted and called for in the name of “fighting global warming” are unnecessary.Â It is regrettable that the public debate over climate change, fueled by the errors and exaggerations contained in the reports of the IPCC, has strayed so far from scientific truth. It is an embarrassment to science that hype has replaced reason in the global debate over so important an issue.
The report can be read online in its entirety at Heartland Institute
While I agree 110%, you’re going after their religion and facts mean zilch to the people you’re trying to reach. IF, as in BIG IF, you could get the media to develop what we used to call honesty, or at the very least, objectivity, then your message would prevail. However, the media is neither honest nor objective and that will not change anytime soon, regretably.
Dr. Syun Akasofu, is a Geophysicist not a climatologist so his doubts regarding the cause of global warming should not be used in your website.
“Dr. Syun Akasofu, is a Geophysicist not a climatologist so his doubts regarding the cause of global warming should not be used in your website.”
That’s an odd notion. Care to explain your thinking on that?
I think the geophysicist’s opinion matters in this debate, to wit:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Geophysics, a branch of Earth sciences, is the study of the Earth by quantitative physical methods, especially by seismic, electromagnetic, and radioactivity methods. The theories and techniques of geophysics are employed extensively in the planetary sciences in general.
The field of geophysics includes the branches of:
Seismology (earthquakes and elastic waves)
Gravity and geodesy (the Earth’s gravitational field and the size and form of the Earth)
Atmospheric science, which includes:
Atmospheric electricity and terrestrial magnetism (including ionosphere, Van Allen belts, telluric currents, Radiant energy, etc.)
Meteorology and Climatology, which both involve studies of the weather.
Aeronomy, the study of the physical structure and chemistry of the atmosphere.
Geomagnetism (study of the Earth’s magnetic field)
Geothermometry (heating of the Earth, heat flow, volcanology, and hot springs)
Hydrology (ground and surface water, sometimes including glaciology)
Tectonophysics (geological processes in the Earth)
Geodynamics (numerical study of the inner Earth)
Exploration and engineering geophysics (see also Archaeological geophysics)
Climate change was going to be the foundation of globalism until terrorism came along. It’s all about globalism, not climate change. My only question? There was a mile of ice above Minnesota four times. It melted four times without any humans on the planet. What made the climate change, cool, and warm back then? The sun, and our rotation through the galaxy, drives the weather changes and climate changes. Governments seek totalitarian control to “protect us” from climate change and terrorists, for our own good. We pay for nothing to happen. What a scam. What made the ice age glaciers a mile thick melt from Minnesota in the past million years? It’s all about taxes.
Governments seek totalitarian control to “protect us” from climate change and terrorists, for our own good. We pay for nothing to happen. What a scam. What made the ice age glaciers a mile thick melt from Minnesota in the past million years? It’s all about taxes.
You could be right, but what if you’re not? A focus on things that are more obviously scams should be just as interesting to you, and maddening, such as the following and has a more immediate effect on the average person’s taxes and spending money than climate change. For example:
There are three things that are driving up the price of oil: the falling dollar, speculation and buying on margin.
The dollar is tanking because of the Federal Reserve’s low interest monetary policies have kept interest rates below the rate of inflation for most of the last decade. Add that to the $700 billion current account deficit and a National Debt that has increased from $5.8 trillion when Bush first took office to over $9 trillion today and it’s a wonder the dollar hasn’t gone â€œPoofâ€ already.
According to a January 4 editorial in the Wall Street Journal: â€œIf the dollar had remained ‘as good as gold’ since 2001, oil today would be selling at about $30 per barrel, not $99. (today $126 per barrel) The decline of the dollar against gold and oil suggests a US monetary that is supplying too many dollars.â€ Wall Street Journal 1-4-08
The price of oil has more than quadrupled since 2001, from roughly $30 per barrel to $126, WITHOUT ANY DISRUPTIONS TO SUPPLY. There’s no shortage; it’s just another scam basically. If you want to get angry and paranoid about something, how about the more tangible issues??