Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference

[literatim]

Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference

BALI, Indonesia - An international team of scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore, descended on Bali this week to urge the world to "have the courage to do nothing" in response to UN demands.

Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.

"Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants.

"The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)" Monckton added. (LINK)

Monckton also noted that the UN has not been overly welcoming to the group of skeptical scientists.

"UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings," Monckton explained.

"It is a circus here," agreed Australian scientist Dr. David Evans. Evans is making scientific presentations to delegates and journalists at the conference revealing the latest peer-reviewed studies that refute the UN's climate claims.

"This is the most lavish conference I have ever been to, but I am only a scientist and I actually only go to the science conferences," Evans said, noting the luxury of the tropical resort. (Note: An analysis by Bloomberg News on December 6 found: "Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year." - LINK)

Evans, a mathematician who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, recently converted to a skeptical scientist about man-made global warming after reviewing the new scientific studies. (LINK)

"We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming. We have the missing [human] signature [in the atmosphere], we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years," Evans said in an interview with the Inhofe EPW Press Blog. Evans authored a November 28 2007 paper "Carbon Emissions Don't Cause Global Warming." (LINK)

Evans touted a new peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists appearing in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society which found "Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK)

"Most of the people here have jobs that are very well paid and they depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. They are not going to be very receptive to the idea that well actually the science has gone off in a different direction," Evans explained.

[Inhofe EPW Press Blog Note: Several other recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. For most recent sampling see: New Peer-Reviewed Study finds 'Solar changes significantly alter climate' (11-3-07) (LINK) & "New Peer-Reviewed Study Halves the Global Average Surface Temperature Trend 1980 - 2002" (LINK) & New Study finds Medieval Warm Period '0.3C Warmer than 20th Century' (LINK) For a more comprehensive sampling of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007 see "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" LINK ]

‘IPCC is unsound'

UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports since its inception going back to 1990, had a clear message to UN participants.

"There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any effect whatsoever on the climate," Gray, who shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to the UN IPCC, explained. (LINK)

"All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails," Gray, who wrote the book "The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," said.

"It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics," he added.

‘Dangerous time for science'

Evans, who believes the UN has heavily politicized science, warned there is going to be a "dangerous time for science" ahead.

"We have a split here. Official science driven by politics, money and power, goes in one direction. Unofficial science, which is more determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data, has now started to move off in a different direction" away from fears of a man-made climate crisis, Evans explained.

"The two are splitting. This is always a dangerous time for science and a dangerous time for politics. Historically science always wins these battles but there can be a lot of causalities and a lot of time in between," he concluded.

Carbon trading ‘fraud?'

New Zealander Bryan Leland of the International Climate Science Coalition warned participants that all the UN promoted discussions of "carbon trading" should be viewed with suspicion.

"I am an energy engineer and I know something about electricity trading and I know enough about carbon trading and the inaccuracies of carbon trading to know that carbon trading is more about fraud than it is about anything else," Leland said.

"We should probably ask why we have 10,000 people here [in Bali] in a futile attempt to ‘solve' a [climate] problem that probably does not exist," Leland added.

‘Simply not work'

Owen McShane, the head of the International Climate Science Coalition, also worried that a UN promoted global approach to economics would mean financial ruin for many nations.

"I don't think this conference can actually achieve anything because it seems to be saying that we are going to draw up one protocol for every country in the world to follow," McShane said. (LINK)

"Now these countries and these economies are so diverse that trying to presume you can put all of these feet into one shoe will simply not work," McShane explained.

"Having the same set of rules apply to everybody will blow some economies apart totally while others will be unscathed and I wouldn't be surprised if the ones who remain unscathed are the ones who write the rules," he added.

‘Nothing happening at this conference'

Professor Dr. William Alexander, emeritus of the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, warned poor nations and their residents that the UN policies could mean more poverty and thus more death.

"My message is specifically for the poor people of Africa. And there is nothing happening at this conference that can help them one little bit but there is the potential that they could be damaged," Alexander said. (LINK)

"The government and people of Africa will have their attention drawn to reducing climate change instead of reducing poverty," Alexander added.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...3-68f67ebd151c

[Richandler]

Mises has another article today too: http://www.mises.org/story/2795


We can try to digg it: http://digg.com/world_news/Are_Carbo...obal_Warming_2

[literatim]

http://www.digg.com/environment/The_...time_and_money

[EvilEngineer]

The big push for "global warming" is to start up the carbon tax system, which will directly fund the growth of a supra-national system.

[kimosabi]

The big push for "global warming" is to start up the carbon tax system, which will directly fund the growth of a supra-national system.

and enslave us for breathing...

[Antonius Stone]

global warming is legitimate

and it is NOT a difficult problem to solve.
Nuclear power has been ignored for far too long. 4th gen reactors create hydrogen as a byproduct

[apc3161]

This is always a difficult subject for me. Only because I'm not a climatology scientist!

So they can throw all sorts of facts and statistics in my face, and of course depending on how you present them you can make me agree with them (both sides can do this btw)

The bottom line is that I have no idea with regard to global warming. I know what I've read and I know what is "Accepted" but I can't disagree or agree with any of it.

Thats why I get upset when you see these "global warming" thousand person marches in DC, because honestly, out of all of them who has taken the time to read all the reports and understands what those reports say?

I can't really refute anything they say because I'm not very familiar with the subject, and I have a degree in a scientific field, mechanical engineering. I can't imagine the average person having a better understanding of the science then me. For this reason, with regard to Climate change, I just stand on the sidelines, dont take sides, and try not to waste electricity just in case.

[rodent]

This is always a difficult subject for me. Only because I'm not a climatology scientist!

So they can throw all sorts of facts and statistics in my face, and of course depending on how you present them you can make me agree with them (both sides can do this btw)

The bottom line is that I have no idea with regard to global warming. I know what I've read and I know what is "Accepted" but I can't disagree or agree with any of it.

Thats why I get upset when you see these "global warming" thousand person marches in DC, because honestly, out of all of them who has taken the time to read all the reports and understands what those reports say?

I can't really refute anything they say because I'm not very familiar with the subject, and I have a degree in a scientific field, mechanical engineering. I can't imagine the average person having a better understanding of the science then me. For this reason, with regard to Climate change, I just stand on the sidelines, dont take sides, and try not to waste electricity just in case.

It's just a question of whether correlation implies causation and looking at the coefficients in a regression equation. There is an unquestionable, substantial increase in CO2. The question is whether this is solely responsible for the increase in heat. Al Gore made a decent case, but it was so high-level that I couldn't scrutinize his data collection methods.

I wish the media would attach the scientific studies themselves, because I don't believe I've ever seen the actual data or how the data was collected.

[apc3161]

It's just a question of whether correlation implies causation and looking at the coefficients in a regression equation. There is an unquestionable, substantial increase in CO2. The question is whether this is solely responsible for the increase in heat. Al Gore made a decent case, but it was so high-level that I couldn't scrutinize his data collection methods.

I wish the media would attach the scientific studies themselves, because I don't believe I've ever seen the actual data or how the data was collected.

Exactly,

I've looked at recent C02 emission charts and the rising in global temperatures (past 100 years), and there is no doubt a correlation, but I have no idea if it is causation or association.

For instance, from studying mass and heat transfer a decent amount at an engineering school, you definitely learn about radiation and the "greenhouse" effect. So if C02 emissions are increasing, then yes, the earth should get warmer. The question becomes, does going from 2.1% to 2.10003% make any difference (made those numbers up, but still its an unbelievably small number)? I have no idea, there are also other types of greenhouse gases such as water vapor which make up a much larger fraction of gas percentage in the atmosphere, but I don't ever hear that mentioned.

So there could be some causation there, but I don't know enough about it.

On the other hand, the solubility of gases (c02 included) in water is inversely proportional to temperature, so if the Earth is getting warmer, then the oceans can hold less C02 and C02 levels will increase. So from that point of view c02 increases are a byproduct of increased temperatures, but not a cause. And because the oceans are absolutely massive, increased atmospheric c02 as a result of increased ocean temperatures I would imagine would dwarf c02 emissions by mankind.

So is it causation or association? I have no idea. You could make valid points for both, and that is why I am at the mercy of f'ing scientists.

[Fox McCloud]

I've examined the evidence again and again, and every time, I end up getting pointed towards "humans contribute, but it's only 0.16%", and that the cause for the rise of temperature has nothing to do with CO2, but rather, the Sun.

The sun has gone absolutely haywire in the past decades....temperatures from the surface and the upper atmosphere disagree, CO2 lags behind temperature rise, and so on and so forth.

Still, I don't think this is an excuse to go polluting the heck out of the atmosphere; we should be good stewards of the environment, but we should never put the environment above human life (which is what is happening).

The free market can ultimately handle the problem; it'll end oil dependence and allow many new technologies to be created; all without government control, funding, intervention, or radical (population control, forced abortions, etc) ideas.

Also, when you look at where the whole Global Warming thing comes from (the UN), it makes me even more skeptical......plus, what they want to do because of it (and the fact they exclude global warming opponents) makes me all the more skeptical. (lastly, the fact that they always fall back on "oh, you're just funded by oil companies" instead of disproving what they say is further evidence).

[Andrew-Austin]

While people are busy discussing global warming, ecosystems and species across the planet are rapidly diminishing due to OTHER pollutants.

This whole debate is given to much focus.

[brandon]

//

[apc3161]

I hate how people who's education stopped at algebra 1 think they can argue for or against climate change.

Couldn't agree more.

[EvilEngineer]

Climatology is a science in it's absolute infancy. The best indicators we have for climate prediction are historical models. Computer models have a VERY high uncertainty rating over a long time span. Mainly because the math behind climate change is really and truly mind boggling. If you accurately wanted to describe how the world will react, you would have to account for every interaction on this planet.

The main focus on CO2 is a pointless... because it is neither the most potent nor abundant greenhouse gas.

If you want a nasty greenhouse gas to blame, look at methane. It holds 20 times the amount of infrared energy than CO2, and a massive influx of methane in the air could cause climate change in months not decades. How? An unstable methane hydrate bed chain reacting and releasing all of it's stored methane into the atmosphere. The freaky thing is that you could cause this on purpose for next to nothing... and ruin the world in the process. A few pounds of well place explosives could trigger multiple beds of hydrates to rapidly warm and release the trapped methane... on the order of hundreds of billions of tons of methane.

Or if you want to blame the most abundant greenhouse gas... it is WATER VAPOR. You contribute to greenhouse gas emissions just by breathing, as the air you expire is nearly 100% moisture saturated. Cooling towers on power plants pump out tons of steam... all of which contributes to the greenhouse gas.

Sigh.. oh well. Rant over.

[Catatonic]

global warming is legitimate

and it is NOT a difficult problem to solve.
Nuclear power has been ignored for far too long. 4th gen reactors create hydrogen as a byproduct

Of course its legit. The question is, do we cause it?

Why are other planets getting warmer along with us? There aren't any humans there polluting. Why does increase in temperature happen before carbon levels rise? Why is it that there have been documented periods when the temperature was higher than it is now, long before the industrial era?

There are legitimate environmental concerns that are being ignored for this fearmongering tax crusade.

It wasn't that long ago that scientists were saying we need to decrease our carbon emissions or we would push ourselves into another ice age

[timosman]