I am going to hell for posting this blasphemous thing
http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=453
The Debate Resumes
CLIMATE CONFERENCE FOR GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS CHALLENGES CLAIMS OF
CONSENSUS, ALLEGES SUPRESSION OF FINDINGS SKEPTICAL OF ALARMIST
PREDICTIONS
by Marc Morano
"
Editor's Note: We have been publi****ng more material than ever on the
subject of climate change, for a very simple reason: The debate is not
over
as to the cause, the eventual severity, nor the remedies for climate
change.
The debate never was over, and for the mainstream press to have ever
acceded
to the notion that debate was over, or to condone marginalizing anyone who
continued to debate, is one of the most eggregious examples of media bias
in
history.
One should think that given what is at stake - the reorganization of our
entire political and economic systems - debate would be welcomed. One
would
think those who are calling for debate and discussion would be heralded as
voices of moderation and reason, instead of branded as ideological
fanatics
and cor****ate ****lls. The fact that debate is supposedly "over" regarding
something for which the remedy is so fundamentally and abruptly
transformative should concern anyone who claims to care about human
rights,
individual freedoms, free enterprise, and an open society. The idea that
anyone who questions global warming alarmism is freely demonized should
concern any student of history. The solution - government control over
virtually anything that emits a gas - including CO2, which plants and
trees
require to for their very survival - and huge new taxes (perhaps disguised
in the form of Wall Street friendly "cap and trade" mechanisms, but the
consumer still pays the freight), should concern anyone who cares about
representative government and values the concept of private property.
Perhaps it is common sense that is endangered here. If the earth is indeed
warming because of anthropogenic CO2, what can be done? Shall we sequester
20-30 gigatons of CO2 every year, when for the amount of money that would
cost, we could clean up every river, stop overfi****ng the oceans,
eliminate
every criteria air pollutant, and fight malaria to a standstill? Even
accepting conclusions of climate models - problematic concoctions that
constitute the "scientific" imperative behind AGW alarmism and consequent
policy - isn't it true that we would have to sequester literally 80% of
the
CO2 currently attributed to human activity? Isn't that impossible? Why not
reforest the planet? Why not restore the mangrove forests that used to
stop
tidal surges throughout the coastal tropics, and why not stop blowing up
coral reefs to flush the cash crop of fish, so they could regenerate and
again stop seasonal storms from inundating tropical islands? There is a
legitimate environmental agenda completely apart from global warming alarm
-
and there are many skeptics who nonetheless care deeply about the
environment.
Common sense would suggest we question the agenda of the global warming
alarmists who rely on fear and questionable science, not that of the
skeptics. If there is a "denial industry," who would benefit? A handful of
underfunded think tanks? If there is a hidden agenda, it is more likely
coming from the "alarm industry." Government agencies get more tax
revenue,
the United Nations gets a revenue stream, insurance companies collect
higher
premiums, cor****ations get more subsidies, small businesses get destroyed
because they can't afford to comply with the new regulations, and families
everywhere pay punitive prices for energy, water and land. Is this the
future we want? Maybe if all of this AGW alarmism were true!
The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change described in this
feature, held earlier this month in New York City, featured some of the
most
credible (and credentialed) people to ever convene at a climate related
event. Their presentations on climate science were diverse, as befits a
scientific conference, and most of the participants were "skeptics,"
something that also befits a scientific conference. But despite the
re****t's
description of this event as being well covered by the media, in reality
it
was not. For the most part, the media ignored this event. Because the
comparison that is valid is not whether or not a few of the mainstream
media
outlets re****ted on this event. The valid comparison is whether or not
this
event got the level of attention that the most recent IPCC press release
garnered, and by that measure coverage was nonexistant. And in too many
cases, coverage was slanted to present a smarmy, derisive characterization
of the event as a final gasp of the "flat earthers."
Many conscientious people, relatively free of biases, simply feel climate
science is beyond them; they need to recognize this inhibition hasn't
stopped the people re****ting the news or those in the political &
entertainment community whose pronouncements they have relied upon. And
for
those who believe in AGW alarmism because it fits preexisting biases, or
furthers a political or economic agenda, know this: Science - stripping
away
the corruption and op****tunism that has infected much of the scientific
community when it comes to the question of alleged global warming - has no
ideology, no ulterior purpose; it is utterly dispassionate. Science relies
on skepticism, and ultimately rests on truth. - Ed "Redwood" Ring The
March
2-4 groundbreaking conference, which featured about 100 speakers with over
500 people attending, presented the re****t of a team of international
scientists who formed a group to counter the UN IPCC. [Note: The author of
this re****t attended and participated in the conference.]
The event, which garnered significant international and U.S. media
attention, featured many current and former UN IPCC scientists from around
the world. The conference occurred just months after the release of a
blockbuster U.S. Senate Minority Re****t featuring over 400 prominent
scientists who recently disputed man-made global warming claims. (LINK)
The
more than 400 scientists featured in the re****t thoroughly debunk the
assertions that "all scientists agree" about man-made global warming. But
as
New York Times environmental re****ter Andrew Revkin noted on March 6,
science is ultimately not a numbers game. "As we all know, climate science
is not a numbers game (there are heaps of signed statements by folks with
advanced degrees on all sides of this issue)," Revkin wrote. )
Furthermore,
a Canadian survey of scientists released on March 6, 2008 offered even
more
evidence that the alleged "consensus" is non-existent. A canvass of more
than 51,000 scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers,
Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) found 68% of them
disagree
with the statement that "the debate on the scientific causes of recent
climate change is settled.'" According to the survey, only 26% of
scientists
attributed global warming to "human activity like burning fossil fuels."
APEGGA"s executive director Neil Windsor said, "We're not surprised at
all.
There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of."
During the conference, scientists revealed the lack of tolerance science
journals and institutions have exhibited for skeptical climate views. "We
[fellow skeptical scientists] talked mostly of work and upcoming papers
and
went through the standard ritual of griping about journal editors and the
ridiculous hoops we sometimes have to jump through to get papers
published.
But some of the guys had absolute horror stories of what happened to them
when they tried getting papers published that explored non-"consensus"
views. Really outrageous and unethical behavior on the parts of some
editors. I was shocked," wrote conference participant Dr. William M.
Briggs,
a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological Society's
Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly
Weather Review, on his blog on March 4.
|
