|
| Christopher Horner Video: "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" |
Posted on 03/04/2008 1:56:11 PM PST by Delacon
| Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change Written By: Edited by S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Published In: Summary for Policymakers Publication Date: March 2, 2008 Publisher: Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change / The Heartland Insstitute |
The public’s fear of anthropogenic global warming seems to be at a fever pitch. Polls show most people in most countries believe human greenhouse gas emissions are a major cause of climate change and that action must be taken to reduce them, although most people apparently are not willing to make the financial sacrifices required.
While the report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) makes it clear that the scientific debate is tilting away from global warming alarmism, we are pleased to see the political debate also is not over. Global warming ‘skeptics’ in the policy arena include Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic; Helmut Schmidt, former German chancellor; and Lord Nigel Lawson, former United Kingdom chancellor of the exchequer. On the other side are global warming fearmongers, including UK science advisor Sir David King and his predecessor Robert May (now Lord May), and of course Al Gore, former vice president of the U.S. In spite of increasing pressures to join Kyoto and adopt emission limits on carbon dioxide, President George W. Bush in the United States has resisted – so far.
We regret that many advocates in the debate have chosen to give up debating the science and now focus almost exclusively on questioning the motives of ‘skeptics,’ name-calling, and ad hominem attacks. We view this as a sign of desperation on their part, and a sign that the debate has shifted toward climate realism.
We hope this study will help bring reason and balance back into the debate over climate change, and by doing so perhaps save the peoples of the world from the burden of paying for wasteful, unnecessary energy and environmental policies. We stand ready to defend the analysis and conclusion in the study that follows, and to give further advice to policymakers who are openminded on this most important topic.
> Download full text (pdf)
junk science ping...
Ping
On the other side are global warming fearmongers, including UK science advisor Sir David King and his predecessor Robert May (now Lord May), and of course Al Gore, former vice president of the U.S.
Fearmongers!! OMG!
In spite of increasing pressures to join Kyoto and adopt emission limits on carbon dioxide, President George W. Bush in the United States has resisted – so far.
(lip service only , W!!)
We have time to scan the executive summary. Does the Doctor claim the whole 50 pages are executive summary? I would fire him if he did.
pass it on
Report #1 from the Global Warming Conference in New York City
Heartland Institute ^ | March 3, 2008 | Joseph Bast
Posted on 03/04/2008 4:19:39 PM EST by Delacon
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1980370/posts
Report #2 from the Global Warming Conference in New York City
The Heartland Institute ^ | March 3, 2008 | Joseph L. Bast
Posted on 03/04/2008 4:39:17 PM EST by Delacon
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1980381/posts
Who needs to read 50 pages? We have CONSENSUS! Now, shut up and go away before we yank your funding.
“Climate realism” A term I could get used to...
According to Al Gore, there is no more debate, so why bother?
Each of us should send the pdf link to everyone on our email lists and tell them not to forget to share. :) Thats what I’m doing. Thanks for posting it. bttt
“Our imperfect understanding of
the causes and consequences of climate change
means the science is far from settled. This, in
turn, means proposed efforts to mitigate climate
change by reducing GH gas emissions are
premature and misguided.”
First sentence is dead-on. Second sentence is extraordinarily illogical. Whenever an understanding of a potential causal link is uncertain, any action to mitigate the potential effects is misguided? A child eats cashews and almost dies. The doctor says, the cashews might have had nothing to do with the outbreak. Does the parent say great, no precautions necessary? Frankly, with that kind of logic, its hard to read on. But I did. There are some really good points. The text is one-sided as you would expect given the financial backing of the foundation. It is a good counter-argument to much of the “consensus view.” It’s sort of like Al Gore. A little too much advocacy and hyperbole; no attempt to reconcile a lot of possibilities which we do not yet fully comprehend.
This should be obvious. Unfortunately, millions of people get their science information from the media.
Unfortunately, all three remaining candidates are global warming whackos.
|
| Christopher Horner Video: "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" |
One page, single sided. If I need more info I will give a whistle. Busy execs need to know if it is change or hope one or the other or some combination.
Latest Weather Channel Headline: 03-04-08
GORE’S GLOBAL FLATULENCE HAS PRODUCED A PDF LINK!
But I thought they were in favor of change.
I don’t think that is a fair analogy. A better analogy is you take what you think is your perfectly healthy child in for a routine checkup and the doctor says that your child is in danger of dying in 20 years if he doesn’t get a medical procedure done NOW and the procedure will bankrupt you. Wouldn’t you want a second opinion? Wouldn’t you ask for further testing? Whenever an understanding of a potential causal link is uncertain, any action to mitigate the potential effects is misguided? Hell yes when the action to mitigate actually may do more harm than good.
“The text is one-sided as you would expect given the financial backing of the foundation. It is a good counter-argument to much of the “consensus view.”
From the outset they proclaimed that they were meeting to give an alternative pov to believers in man made global warming and to show that there is no consensus. Nothing shadowy or underhanded there. Your jab at their financial backing is fine as far as it goes. Somebody tell me why nobody in the media attacks the IPCC that practically started the global warming scare whose backing is the UN.
“It’s sort of like Al Gore. A little too much advocacy and hyperbole; no attempt to reconcile a lot of possibilities which we do not yet fully comprehend.”
After a decade of Al Gore and global warming alarmists attacking anyone that disagrees with them I think they have earned a right to a little advocacy and hyperbole as you call it. In fact, the debate has been so one sided for so long, the debate needs a LOT of hyperbole and advocacy if we are going to get anywhere near to balanced and evenhanded debate over climate change. Any timidity would simply be shouted down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.