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.

 

Global warming? Not so fast, skeptics say at meeting

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
This is a piece on the conference held in Washington DC last Tuesday, the srticle says it was moved to DC to hopefully oppose the pending cap and trade proposals from the Obama administration.

I am posting this FYI and for posterity, this legislation will impact everyone should it become law.


Global warming? Not so fast, skeptics say at meeting

WASHINGTON

U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher was in a froth, and his audience loved it.

The California Republican was talking about global warming and could barely contain his disgust.

"Al Gore has been wrong all along!" Rohrabacher yelled into the microphone. "This is outrageous! All of this is wrong! The people who have stifled this debate have an agenda that is just frightening!"

Welcome to the third annual International Conference on Climate Change, a daylong session of speeches and scientific presentations that took place Tuesday just blocks from the U.S. Capitol. Almost no media covered the event.


Wonder why this wasn't covered on MSM?




posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Found another interesting item on the GW deal, this is the announcement of a new report rebutting the findings of the UN IPCC, there's a link there to download the book for your perusal.


Climate Change Reconsidered

An important event in the global warming debate occurred this week, with the release of Climate Change Reconsidered, an 880-page book produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change Reconsidered is authored by Dr. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso, with 35 additional contributors. The purpose of the book is to "present an authoritative and detailed rebuttal of the findings of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on which the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress rely for their regulatory proposals." You can download it in its entirety at the linked site.




ed:sp


[edit on 6/6/2009 by JacKatMtn]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Hehe , good find, I realy have no energy to start on this, it is a huge scam that every person on the planet are accepting and dont know about !!!




posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


Nice thread! I have always thought this GW was bunk. This is a conspiracy you can sink your teeth into.
GE hooking up with the White House to promote this tripe, MSNBC/NBC (owned by GE) promoting this mindless drivel.
Our children being indoctrinated by school officials who promote this kind of mindless garbage (pretty soon I'm going to have to get a thesaurus)!
Any scientist worth their salt could explain fractuals, and with a third grade education in statistics could tell you the data is flawed concerning climate change.
Bleeding heart liberals and progressives can drive their tofu powered cars all day long.
But it aint gonna change a thing as far as mother earth is concerned.

When I went to H&R Block this year to get my taxes done the lady asked if I had anything to contribute, I said I contributed to global warming.

She didn't get it.

Further example that liberals have no sense of humor.

00.02 -the heck with that-. . . 00.03



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
global warming
i love it. why, just 15 years ago, they were scared of an ice age in the near future, citing "no end in site for 30 year cooling trend." for YEARS scientists have said that warming temps cause an increase in co2 levels, then once certain people realize you can capitalize from carbon, (carbon taxes, emission taxes, man the list goes on and on) its all of a sudden hard fact, backed by the government, increases in research funds to find a way to combat this new threat. everyone wins.... except for the tax payers. im glad to hear people are trying to publicly speak out against it again...



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
You can't sell an agenda with a broken and exposed myth, that is why the MSM will not cover this.

Cyclical climate changes are natural, and there is little or nothing man has or will do to change that. It is the height of arrogance for the human race to believe it can destroy the climate when that race has not been here for even a fraction of a blink of an eye in the lifetime of this world.

Exploiting climate "fear" is what has been going on, and that exploitation was all cleverly designed to pursue reckless agendas which can only cause a great deal more human suffering and economic troubles.

The perpetrators of this fraud should all be brought to justice for their crimes against humanity.

THEY are the destroyers of OUR world, and they are trying to convince everyone that we are going to destroy the climate.

One day perhaps the human race will develop the intelligence to dissect the truth from politically motivated science and agenda driven propaganda.

It will likely be to late when people find themselves living in a self imposed dark age... Then again, maybe that would be a good thing?



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


Nice thread! I have always thought this GW was bunk. This is a conspiracy you can sink your teeth into.



Thanks, IMO, the GW isn't bunk ,they just disregard any factual evidence that doesn't fit into the PLAN. THen they conveniently present it in a way to make it a profitable venture...

That's the conspiracy, sure WE, the human race, have had an impact on the climate, the question is how much.

Is it to the extent that the UN IPCC is pushing? I don't think so...

There's a BIG bundle of money ready to be made should the US pass legislation in regards to cap & trade..

BIG MONEY...

Ask former VP Al Gore about making money off of the GW issue...

It's wrong, the US has been pushing the environmental issue since (at least from my lifetime) the 70's, when our sources of water were being contaminated by big business and all the way down to Harry Homeowner pouring the waste oil in the backyard..

That was wrong, BUT that has changed BIGTIME, look at all the legislation passed to limit the (what they now call) Carbon footprint, in my day it was called pollution.

Same deal different name...

Cars went to unleaded fuel, catalytic converters, CAFE standards were established, speed limits lowered, and in urban areas emissions requirements were mandated and the taxpayers had to pay for the inspections....

Don't tell me that all of these measures put in place over the last 30+ years has not made a difference.

IMO, this is a concerted effort to force the citizens to go green so those in power can Collect the GREEN..

Simple as that.

Are we (citizens) that stupid to fall for this scam?

I certainly hope not.

ed:clarity

[edit on 6/6/2009 by JacKatMtn]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   
whew, glad I got that out


Now back to a new article on the topic, here's one that (I think) was submitted by a concerned citizen since the papaer decideed to tag it with CITIZEN JOURNALISM guess the paper doesn't want some heat directed their way...

It is another piece on the conference held in DC last Tuesday:


'Realists' challenge claim of consensus on warming

Several hundred scientists, politicians and activists participated in the third annual International Conference on Climate Change on Tuesday, marking another stage in the timeline of a scientific social movement.

The conference, sponsored by the nonprofit Heartland Institute, hosted panels of climatologists and meteorologists as well as members of Congress to address questions surrounding global warming and climate-change legislation.

In its 25 years, Heartland has drawn together about 31,000 scientists, more than 9,000 of whom hold doctorates, to provide a forum for scientific debate on the issue of man-made global warming.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Here is a painful read, but it tackles some of the points of sceptics and to be fair I am posting it here for your perusal.

WARNING : painful read, it is very distracting to have to glance past all of the typed links
.


NOAH’S ARK REVISITED

Mammals have only been able to attain large dimensions on land once atmospheric CO2 concentrations declined toward c. 500 ppm during the Eocene (56-34 million years ago) (en.wikipedia.org...), with related cooling of c.5 degrees C, formation of the Antarctic ice sheet and decline of sea levels by c.70 meters. current atmospheric carbon gas levels (CO2 - 387 ppm; CO2+CH4 >450 ppm equivalent) threaten fast-tracking toward the top of ice age conditions.



This portion of the piece is confusing:


A well financed alliance of neoconservatives, fossil fuel executives, ex-tobacco lobbyists (www.desmogblog.com...), fundamentalists, right wing journalists and sceptics who operate outside the scientific peer-review system, receiving near-exclusive publicity in large parts of the media, disseminate untruths and doubt which are welcome by (A) those of prefer to live in denial of dangerous climate change; (B) those who would not understand the scientific method; and (C) provide governments with excuses to delay weak 11th hour attempts at carbon constraints.


For those academics out there, is this a common thing to imply politics into a Conclusions section of a paper?

This is the author of the piece, I am not familiar with the name maybe someone here knows of this person...

By Andrew Glikson Earth and paleoclimate scientist Australian National University



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
This thread deserves way more attention. I haven't had a chance to go over all info yet, but will in due time. It's great to see more people waking up to the profitering scare mongerers lies. If only enough people can put pressure on governments to not follow through with the carbon taxes and wealth transfer measures that will be pushed in Copenhagen this Christmas (the new kyoto treaty).

S & F from me



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn

This portion of the piece is confusing:


A well financed alliance of neoconservatives, fossil fuel executives, ex-tobacco lobbyists (www.desmogblog.com...), fundamentalists, right wing journalists and sceptics who operate outside the scientific peer-review system, receiving near-exclusive publicity in large parts of the media, disseminate untruths and doubt which are welcome by (A) those of prefer to live in denial of dangerous climate change; (B) those who would not understand the scientific method; and (C) provide governments with excuses to delay weak 11th hour attempts at carbon constraints.


For those academics out there, is this a common thing to imply politics into a Conclusions section of a paper?

This is the author of the piece, I am not familiar with the name maybe someone here knows of this person...

By Andrew Glikson Earth and paleoclimate scientist Australian National University


This doesn't appear to have been published in any scientific journal. And I don't think it can with the sources of news sites and I think I saw one with Wiki. So this is just a opinion, not actually a study.

Unless some Journal lower their bar on what they are publishing now.

Its a good read. Written like a scientific paper, but just take it at face value.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by testrat
 


Thanks for the clarification, I just saw that portion of the paper and it seemed to me to be unnecessary to be added as part of the writer's conclusion.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Here are a couple more recent pieces on the GW debate and the effects of the GW legislation that most likely will be passed in the near future..

For the record, the source is the Heritage foundation, a conservative organization, so their assertions should be taken with the slant in mind..

However, it is important to read both sides of the argument, and make up your own mind on the subject being debated..

I always believe the truth is usually buried in between the opposing sides..


What is the Bigger Threat? Global Warming or Global Warming Legislation

Yesterday the White House release a report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, finding that “Climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.” Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) told The Hill, “The findings released today add urgency to the growing momentum in Congress for legislation that cuts global warming pollution.” Do they really? Is there any evidence in the report that global warming legislation will prevent any of the changes the report identifies? Is there any evidence in the report that the costs of global warming legislation will be offset by its benefits? No and no.

The Obama administration climate report identifies a number of impacts from global warming including “increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level”; “increased heat, pests, water stress, diseases, and weather extremes”; and increased “heat stress, waterborne diseases, poor air quality, extreme weather events, and diseases transmitted by insects and rodents.” These are all bad. But how bad? The report does not put a price tag on any of these maladies. But the report does identify some benefits from global warming including “thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons”, and “earlier snowmelt.” As Manhattan Institute senior fellow Jim Manzi has noted the U.S. should not expect any net economic damage from global warming before 2100. So the net threat for the United States from global warming over the next 90 years is essentially zero.



Son of Waxman-Markey: More Politics Makes for a More Costly Bill

Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) modified their global warming proposal from the draft version published on March 31. For the most part, the changes focused on the distribution of the allowance revenue--the equivalent of tax revenue.

There was also a slight easing of targeted emissions reductions for 2020, which resulted in a marginally lower economic impact. However, the new distribution of allowances created a less efficient pattern of government expenditures and more than offset the gain from the lower cap for 2020.

The economic impact of the new draft varies from that of the original draft in several major ways:



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join