It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Skeptical Scientists Kicked Off UN Press Schedule in Bali ... Again

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Skeptical Scientists Kicked Off UN Press Schedule in Bali ... Again


www.globalwarmingheartland.org

CHICAGO, Illinois - December 13, 2007) -- For the second time this week, the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) was kicked off the press schedule for the United Nations' climate conference in Bali, Indonesia.

The ICSC is a group of scientists from Africa, Australia, Europe, India, New Zealand, and the U.S. who contend sound science does not support the outrageous claims and draconian regulations proposed in Bali.

The ICSC team leader, Bryan Leyland, an expert in carbon and energy trading, reported, "This morning I confirmed we had the main conference hall for 9:00 AM tomorrow. At 4:30 PM today, I found that Barbara Black bumped us off the schedule and closed further bookings. I'm fuming."

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 06:46 AM
link   
Why would the UN want to keep opposite opinions off the agenda? What are they trying to hide? I thought science was science, the data is the data.

www.globalwarmingheartland.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 07:13 AM
link   
One of the Danish members of ICSC, is also a "member of the board", at a large Danish Pension Company.

So I wonder if he has an Agenda of his own to support this group?

MP Pension has alot of money invested in Oil and Gas.

Maybe others can look into the other members?



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime
www.globalwarmingheartland.org
(visit the link for the full news article)


I don't know,
but the partisan link you've posted (which has links to pro-family and anti-UN groups) is extremely bias. Let's not ignore that fact it has advertisement for CPAC (which is a conservative coalition group)...

Sorry, but atleast us (who believe in climate change) are not partisan



[edit]

One of the links is to a group called Environmentalism: The Anti-Industrial Revolution...who think environmentalism is an attack Western values and they compare it to Islamic fundamentalism.

Again...not a very crediable source you've posted


[edit on 15-12-2007 by infinite]



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 07:33 AM
link   


Why would the UN want to keep opposite opinions off the agenda? What are they trying to hide? I thought science was science, the data is the data.


The opinions these guys have are just long-refuted recycled arguments. Why bother wasting time with them? It would be like having a group of creationists at a discussion on science education. They have nothing new.

We don't need to hear people like Bob Carter spreading disinformation by suggesting the climate has been cooling since 1998.

They are a tiresome lot.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 07:50 AM
link   


The ICSC team leader, Bryan Leyland, an expert in carbon and energy trading, reported...


I dunno.. maybe it has something to do with his credentials.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Interesting that all the posts are negative against these guys.......Attacking them personally rather that even entertain the idea that they have an alternative opinion. Personally I think GW is real and hope it continues to a significant state. Perhaps a +10 deg F. That would be great.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 



Who says GW is bad? The greatest growth in human history was between 900-1200 AD. The little optimum.

Clearly 1/3 of the landmass on this planet is uninhabitable over half a year. If GW does increase upper Canada, Siberia, Greenland become rich farmland. Perhaps ever antartica, who that be great or what.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime
Who says GW is bad? The greatest growth in human history was between 900-1200 AD. The little optimum.


And the evidence suggests we are above that 'optimum' already. So, we'd be wise to try to keep a similar level in future. Another 2-4'C is most likely not so optimum.

[edit on 15-12-2007 by melatonin]


apc

posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Homesteading in Antarctica. Now that'd be a sight. Although the penguins were there first... but I guess we could set up some little ice reservations or something.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Based on the historical data, I have to disagree we are anywhere near the little opitmum. Greenland is still a bit icy................

Rem, the vikings didn't need to gather food all summer long to survive winter because there was little or no winter in northern europe.

How is it that icy winters are somehow a good thing to keep? Perhaps there is a ski lodge agenda here......................


Not a skier, don't care if they ever run another lift.........Give me warm 80-90 deg F anyday. Heck 100 isn't bad either.........



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Just another scam by the U.N. to try to get what they want. They want the U.S. to pay trillions in the Kyoto deal while China and Russia pay almost nothing. They have acid rivers in China for god sake that would kill you if you dare to take a swim. China will surpass us in total emissions in two years and it will take them forever to slow it down.
People need to stop whining about Global Warming because its the sun that is doing it and its natural. The earth is a living breathing thing that can take care of air pollution on its own with a little help from us as long as Idiots would stop cutting down huge forest that reprocess the carbon dioxide. Yes we need to keep cutting emissions like we have been doing for at least two decades while other countries have done nothing. But the Al Gores of this world need to kiss my rear. He is the biggest hypocrite on the earth and his talking all the time is wasting our good air.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime
Based on the historical data, I have to disagree we are anywhere near the little opitmum. Greenland is still a bit icy................


It's generally accepted that greenland was named as such to blag people to settle there. They only settled in a couple of areas, and those areas also have a relatively mild climate now.

As I said, we are possibly warmer than the 'little optimum' already.



If we keep emitting, it might be not so optimum.

[edit on 15-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   
science can prove anything it likes...good science should never take itself too seriously...IF other planets in solar system are warming also, good chance it is the Sun....IF science about Sun's is correct...i.e. they expand as their fuel is consumed.....if this expansion narrows the distance between Earth & Sun i'd expect it to get hotter....cold space or no cold space...just like i can 'feel' the sun hotter/more intence as i travel closer to the equator...which is the closest part of the Earth to the Sun...('NEW' Earths not flat science)....but i'm not a scientist....one thing will be for sure....they will use GW to make $........................GB



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


This was reported by multiple sources yesterday. Sorry. I figured it would be already up on ATS somewhere or I would have posted it then. It is a clear effort to hide something they don't want said. A Conspiracy? You betcha! Since when is Science about withholding facts? I'm undecided about GW but every time something like this occurs or someone like Gore spins the truth or exaggerates facts, I lean the other way. Somebody is hiding something and they know it or they would not be blocking the free flow of information. No matter which side you are on this should offend you.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Somebody is hiding something and they know it or they would not be blocking the free flow of information. No matter which side you are on this should offend you.


I think the information these guys have is already all over the interwebz, in newspapers, on TV. The only place it's hard to find is actually where it should be - in the scientific literature. If you haven't heard the 1998 canard by now, you need to extract yourself from off that 'fence', and get about a bit more.

It's just the same old stuff regurgitated. Blaine, few people care about these guys anymore. They don't even respond to criticisms of their canards, that's why people call them 'deniers'. Once you attempt to correct such disinformation, and they carry on regardless, there's no point. It's all PR and media BS, an orchestrated campaign of climate 'obscuration'.

Discussion is futile.

[edit on 15-12-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 05:39 AM
link   
"TABLE 4a.

Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED) Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics % of All Greenhouse Gases % Natural % Man-made
Water vapor 95.000% 94.999% 0.0001%
(CO2) 3.618% 3.502% 0.117%
Methane (CH4) 0.360% 0.294% 0.066%
Nitrous Oxide 0.950% 0.903% 0.047%
Misc. gases 0.072% 0.025% 0.047%
Total 100.00% 99.72 0.28% "

mysite.verizon.net...

www.physicalgeography.net...


Man has noting to do with GW..................







[edit on 16-12-2007 by heliosprime]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 09:37 AM
link   
That's BS maths providing BS figures, as they say, GIGO, but hey-ho.

Water vapour takes up about 66%ish of the greenhouse effect, CO2 between 9-26% (Kiehl & Trenberth, 1997; Ramanathan & Coakley, 1978).

We can account for about a 30% of current CO2 levels. Thus, about 3-8% of the current greenhouse effect is due to human activity.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Wow another surprise, the figures you quote are now where in the report you provided??????????????????? The report has to do with radiation reflection and absorption not content of the atmosphere. Two different things bucko!



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Again can someone explain how a warmer climate is bad? How making 1/3 of the planets landmass inhabitable a bad thing? Growing grapes in scotland again...................

A green Greenland. The theory that its name was derived from a 10th century "madison ave" marketing genuis of a viking is a bit silly isn't it?




top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join