Detailed list of scientists against climate change

[lookingforitallthetime]

Perhaps extremist was too strong a word. You must feel the same way about Al Gore. Same message.

Either way I put both of them in "the sky is falling" category which I don't believe is necessarily true. We have a problem that humans have contributed to but I believe we can solve environmental issues over time.

Kyoto was a joke. Carbon taxes or the creation of a world buraucracy will not lead us to the solution. Rewards for human ingenuity or technological advances in power production is the key.

 

[blackrock13]

I actually don't have a difficult time placing him in the extreamist camp, some of his statements regarding jailing politicians who don't enact the legislation he thinks is needed puts him just a little further out than I like.

The other thing is with his education and background, accepting the global warming theory without question makes me wonder .

If nothing else he should be able to accept that people can question things with out being labelled .

Don't think he doesn't question things. His workshops and lectures are very Socratic and he's not that quick to take things on face value. it's just he's been doing this so long, he sometime sidelines the fact that a lot of people don't know what he takes as matter-of-fact.

 

[landscaper]

You could be correct but from personal knowledge he does not suffer other opinions gladly.

 

[landscaper]

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/12/14/climate-skeptic-we-are-winning-the-science-battle/

This just showed up in my mail, it would be from a scientist that is in direct opposition to Dr Suzuki.

Which is correct, unfortunatley with the mess that has been made out of the data , adjustments and the science we may have to go back to basic principles to determine the correct course of action.

 

[K Douglas]

I believe in climate change and I believe that man made co2 is contributing to the warming of our planet. Because of this I believe we have a moral obligation to not waste energy. For me that means I don't wait in a drive thru with my car idling. That means I take public transit if it can move me from point A to point B in a reasonable amount of time. That means I recycle. That means I invest in companies that are environmentally conscious. I do these voluntarily even though not a single scientist has shown us a model that has been universally accepted which quantifies the direct causal increase in temperatures as a result of man made carbon emissions. If they are certain that we are the prime contributor to global warming then show us the data link. Until then I will continue to be environmentally conscious. But I am not willing to sacrifice my current lifestyle nor am I willing to sit idly by and absorb never ending user fees, increases in taxes, prices of consumable goods and heavy job losses for something that hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[landscaper]

I believe in climate change and I believe that man made co2 is contributing to the warming of our planet. Because of this I believe we have a moral obligation to not waste energy. For me that means I don't wait in a drive thru with my car idling. That means I take public transit if it can move me from point A to point B in a reasonable amount of time. That means I recycle. That means I invest in companies that are environmentally conscious. I do these voluntarily even though not a single scientist has shown us a model that has been universally accepted which quantifies the direct causal increase in temperatures as a result of man made carbon emissions. If they are certain that we are the prime contributor to global warming then show us the data link. Until then I will continue to be environmentally conscious. But I am not willing to sacrifice my current lifestyle nor am I willing to sit idly by and absorb never ending user fees, increases in taxes, prices of consumable goods and heavy job losses for something that hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is nothing wrong with this and not putting things into the atmosphere is good thing.

The problem I have is the science is iffy and I really hate being told what to do on general principles. And having somebody stuff their version of something down my throat to achieve what they think of as social justice is something I am not ready to do.

 

[fuji]

Kyoto was a joke. Carbon taxes or the creation of a world buraucracy will not lead us to the solution. Rewards for human ingenuity or technological advances in power production is the key.

I believe in market based solutions. The problem with any kind of pollution, including carbon emissions, is that they appear to be "free" to any business.

The problem is that the cost of pollution is something that is spread out to everyone, but the benefit of pollution accrues only to the polluter. So every individual company has an incentive to pollute, even though we all collectively suffer.

In that respect even highly innovative technologies for reducing carbon emissions would be ignored by individual businesses unless there are real associated cost savings.

The solution to this is to make each individual business pay a tax equivalent to the cost of their pollution.

That's a simple statement. The hard part is estimating what the cost is, we can leave that to another day, but at least in princple we should be able to agree that everyone should pay their own way and that each individual company should pick up the cost of whatever pollution they create.

In the case of carbon emissions, that would be a carbon tax. Mandatory caps on emissions are really only a way of AVOIDING a tax that is otherwise economically necessary.

 

[landscaper]

This all assumes that everyone will either buy in or be forced in. The CHinese are not happy with anything that is dictated to them period and I can't see them jumping in without some serious polititicing/bribery.

The other issue are the countries that were looking forward to getting their hands on all that money from the carbon credits. They will not be happy at all and without a reason to get on board (bribes again) they will provide a problem for enforcement

 

[blackrock13]

There is nothing wrong with this and not putting things into the atmosphere is good thing.

The problem I have is the science is iffy and I really hate being told what to do on general principles. And having somebody stuff their version of something down my throat to achieve what they think of as social justice is something I am not ready to do.

You make it sound like it's no better than flipping a coin, which it isn't.

It's not social justice, it's survival of life as we have been able to enjoy to date.

 

[Anbarandy]

You make it sound like it's no better than flipping a coin, which it isn't.

It's not social justice, it's survival of life as we have been able to enjoy to date.

Hey, Al Gore can probably use this line!

 

[WoodPeckr]

Sounds like a keeper....

 

[landscaper]

You make it sound like it's no better than flipping a coin, which it isn't.

It's not social justice, it's survival of life as we have been able to enjoy to date.

Actually I think you are wrong on this. Fuji has posted a system that would actually work to solve the CO2 problem on another thread , the reason it won 't work is it actually taxes the producers of the offensive material rather than using carbon offsets that would be given to the third world countries because in theory they don't produce as much CO2.

The idea has merrit and would probably work from a technical point of view. Now if the climate change zealots were actually more concerned about the environment than the social redistribution of the ill gotten wealth of the developed world they would jump all over a system like it.

The problem is all those trillions of dollars in carbon offsets that would have to be paid out to developing countries. They would not be there , that is the point where the activists and the UN will stop the train. The developed world can not be allowed to keep all the money they have created its just not socially correct. At least in some circles

 

[blackrock13]

The big reason virtually nothing is being done is every single government save very few are only interested in their own solutions. There's been a number of $600 Billion to put a big stop on the landslide and that amount to less than 1% of the GNP of the G30. FFS! That's peanuts. Sweden being working on this since the late 90's and will beat 1996 numbers by 10%. Meanwhile their economy has grown over 40% since then. Tell me can't be done. You just want to do it.

 

[onthebottom]

The big reason virtually nothing is being done is every single government save very few are only interested in their own solutions. There's been a number of $600 Billion to put a big stop on the landslide and that amount to less than 1% of the GNP of the G30. FFS! That's peanuts. Sweden being working on this since the late 90's and will beat 1996 numbers by 10%. Meanwhile their economy has grown over 40% since then. Tell me can't be done. You just want to do it.

1% of GDP, that's about what Canada spends on it's military.

OTB

 

[landscaper]

The big reason virtually nothing is being done is every single government save very few are only interested in their own solutions. There's been a number of $600 Billion to put a big stop on the landslide and that amount to less than 1% of the GNP of the G30. FFS! That's peanuts. Sweden being working on this since the late 90's and will beat 1996 numbers by 10%. Meanwhile their economy has grown over 40% since then. Tell me can't be done. You just want to do it.

You are correct in as far as every govt has something on its agenda. For most splving climate change is not it. The developing countries want the money from the carbon offsets, basically they want our money so that we can produce things and heat our homes etc.

China, India and the far east wnt to make sure that they can keep burning coal to provide power for their factories that produce the cheap products that we like.

The developed economies don't want their economies destroyed in order to pad the bank account of Robert Mugambe.

Those are the actual agendas that are being debated in Copenhagen. The climate is a handy reason to get the power brokers in one city.

 

[WoodPeckr]

1% of GDP, that's about what Canada spends on it's military.

OTB

That is excellent and an extremely laudable set of priorities!
Apparently they heeded IKE's warning about the MIC!
Shows that have their heads screwed on straight, which is more than can be said about your boyz bottie....

 

[blackrock13]

1% of GDP, that's about what Canada spends on it's military.

OTB

.... and that's a bad thing?

 

[WoodPeckr]

.... and that's a bad thing?

It's bad of you are a Corporatist lap puppy....

 

[binderman]

The U.S. Department of Energy has sent a “Litigation Hold Notice” to the Climate Research Unit in the U.K. to not shred anything:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/...ru-to-employees-asking-to-preserve-documents/

And already new lies are being uncovered, the 'scientists' in the U.K. were intentionally fabricating data again:

http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/16/climategate-just-got-much-much-bigger/

“What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.”




from Climateaudit:

http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/16/...-probably-tampered-with-russian-climate-data/

The Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

 

[blackrock13]

And already new lies are being uncovered, the 'scientists' in the U.K. were intentionally fabricating data again:

http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/16/climategate-just-got-much-much-bigger/

“What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.”




from Climateaudit:

http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/16/...-probably-tampered-with-russian-climate-data/

The Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

There are exceptions, but most research coming out of Russia have caveats attached to them regularly and are seldom taken at face value to quickly.

I don't remember how many e-mails there were, but I doubt a majority have been read b y anyone, certainly not by posters on this BB (I know I got other things to do), and there a good chance they're cherry-picked something fierce. I'm not defending these guys one bit, as they have set things back years, but they weren't the only one ones working this street and there's still credible work piled to the ceiling that put forth a strong body of evidence.