Posted on 12/08/2009 7:31:58 AM PST by IrishMike
THE UN Climate Change Summit started this week in Copenhagen with far more dissent than its organisers hoped for from two extremes of the climate change debate . We had the "grandfather of climate change", James Hansen, describing the proceedings as counter-productive and "a farce", while the chief Saudi Arabian negotiator to the summit, Mohammed al-Sabban, doubts the current science and suggests there is no longer any point in seeking agreement to reduce emissions.
It is therefore certain that the global political debate on managing carbon emissions and climate change will continue well beyond the Copenhagen summit. It is to be hoped that the scientific debate is also permitted to continue.
Results released this year suggest that the degree of scientific certainty falls short of that desirable before we set binding targets and dollar values on carbon emissions. Indeed, Tim Flannery, chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council admitted that: "We can't pretend we have perfect knowledge: we don't."
This is a refreshingly honest comment when contrasted with some of the statements in the hacked emails of the Climatic Research Unit, UK, made by leading British and US climate scientists, who were caught with their fingers on the "delete button" when faced with climate data that failed to agree with their computer models.
Meanwhile two recent results published by top scientists cast doubt on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's theory about the link between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming. These are of of significance because whereas the climate models used by the IPCC rely on software to represent a large number of highly complex Earth processes, these results are equivalent to experimental observations on the Earth itself.
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.com.au ...
Hansen is calling Copenhagan a farce because they are not using his new scheme to extort money from us. He thinks cap and trade will reward Wall Street and not have enough incentives to reduce CO2. He favors a “fee and dividend” plan that charges CO2 emitters and gives that money back to the public depending on their ability to reduce their carbon footprint.
It is his ego and his dogma that is calling Copenhagan a farce
His job is to destroy NASA. Based on his rantings he is sure giving the Goddard Space Org a BAAAD name.
-
-
When was the last time you heard a scientist get hysterical when you asked him to explain Einstein's theory of relativity?
If you ask a scientist why nothing can move faster than the speed of light, he doesn't tell you a terrible story about how koala bears will die if you don't believe the theory is right, does he?
Scientists who are confident and in command of the facts don't need to distort data and duck basic questions about the assumptions that are behind scientific theories.
John Hawkins
bttt
Well, almost everyone.
How so?
How so?
Destroy plants and animals or destroy Goddard?
HE IS AN IDIOT!
He is suppose to be the head of a Scientic Ins. Yet spouts this insanity (fraud)
It is rather obvious.
I want a check for having a piddly carbon footprint. Fork it over!
So the Warmists are fighting amongst themselves. This is what is known as a popcorn-intensive moment. Good thing my Boy Scout supplier just delivered.
You're thinking of Roger Revelle:
While serving as Director of Scripps, Revelle and one of his researchers wrote the first modern scientific paper that linked carbon dioxide released into the air from the burning of fossil fuels and the greenhouse effect and the warming of temperatures. This triggered an avalanche of research that eventually became the impetus behind the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the entire global warming movement.In the 1960s Revelle moved to Harvard to establish a Center for Population Studies. There is where Professor Revelle encounter student Albert Gore. He involved Gore and his class mates in tabulating the data from a carbon dioxide study. Gore was so impressed he wrote about it in his 1992 book, " Earth in the Balance ". That became the story for the movie "an Inconvenient Truth". The Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize and some people say 100 million dollars came from that effort. There is no doubt Roger Revelle had a major impact on Vice President Gore's life.
But there is a twist. In 1988 Roger Revelle was having major second thoughts about whether carbon dioxide was a significant greenhouse gas. He wrote letters to two Congressmen about it. And in 1991 he co-authored a report for the new science magazine Cosmos in which he expressed his strong doubts about global warming and urged more research before any remedial action was taken.
At that point Mr. Gore pronounced Revelle as senile and refused to debate global warming.
Paul Pearson of Cardiff University and his international team achieved a breakthrough recently, published four weeks ago in arguably the world's top scientific journal, Nature. . . .
Pearson's work contains a couple of remarkable results.
First the greenhouse atmosphere pre-cooling contained a CO2 concentration of 900 parts per million by volume, or more than three times that of the Earth in pre-industrial days.
Am I reading this wrong, or did Nature actually print something that undercuts AGW? I thought Nature was well and truly in the satchel! The other "contrarian" paper appeared in Energy and Environment, which IIRC is not one of the favored few.
Ditto! He has it coming.
I’m with you there - I pinged the wrong post (and wrong thread...) sorry.
NO problemo.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
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.