Climate change skeptics say it's hard to get heard

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - skeptics of the seriousness of global warming
complained on Wednesday of not being heard by the public or policy makers
while warning governments to take a second look at the scientific consensus
on climate change.

Scientists who doubt the scope and cause of climate change have trouble
getting funding [Becuase there is no money to be made if humans causing
global warming were to be proven false.] and academic posts [Because there
is relatively no government research grant money being offered to refute
human caused global warming.] unless they conform to an "alarmist scenario,"
said Roger Helmer, a British member of the European Parliament, at a panel
discussion on appropriate responses to rising global temperatures.

Reference
http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/Sho...np&date=070206

"If global warming is happening, we can then ask: is it accelerating and is
it likely to be catastrophic?" he said. "Many people think not."

European Union leaders agreed in March to try to cut greenhouse gas
emissions by at least a fifth compared with 1990 levels by 2020 and as much
as 30 percent if other industrialized and emerging countries joined in.

The EU pledge came shortly before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), which groups 2,500 scientists and is considered the world
authority on the issue, said all regions of the planet would suffer from a
sharp warming.

David Henderson, an economist at the Westminster Business School in London
and former head of the Economics and Statistics Department at the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD, said
governments had given the IPCC a monopoly on climate advice.

"The very idea of creating a single would-be authoritative fount of wisdom
is itself dubious," he said, urging countries to seek a more balanced
approach than the IPCC and to stop pursuing programs to urgently reduce
carbon emissions.

"In this area of policy it's high time for governments to think again," he
said.

Mahi Sideridou, climate policy director at environmental group Greenpeace,
rejected criticism of the IPCC.

"Saying that the IPCC is not balanced is probably the most ridiculous claim
that anybody can make," she said, stressing the group's reports were based
on scientific consensus.

The IPCC findings are approved unanimously by more than 100 governments and
will guide policy on issues such as extending the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, the
main U.N. plan for capping greenhouse gas emissions, beyond 2012.

Benny Peiser, a professor at Liverpool John Moores University, questioned
the methods used by climate scientists. He said many were recognizing that
using computer modeling to predict an "inherently unpredictable future" was
illogical.

"Today's scientific consensus very often turns out to be tomorrow's
redundant theory," he said. He said that scientific journals refused to take
papers from scientists who doubted climate change.

Most scientists say climate change will cause seas to rise, glaciers to melt
and storms to intensify, potentially leading to more natural disasters
around the world.

http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?...29984220070418

Chas.Chan schreef:

"If global warming is happening, we can then ask: is it accelerating and is
it likely to be catastrophic?" he said. "Many people think not."

Why keep looking for reasons not to save on fosile fuels?

How about:

1) Stop being dependent on instabile regions of the world.
2) Stop being in debt with instable countries.
3) Stop polution.
4) Lower the smog in cities that cause many deaths, and have a serious
impact on health insurances.
5) Fosile fuels will eventually dry up. Think about the possibilities
for economics that already work with alternatives.
6) Due to the above, fosile fuels will increase much more in price.
Alternative fuels will actually be more economical.

And if you think well you can easily come up with more reasons to reduce
fosile fuels. Stop parroting the oil-producers I say.

Argh I did it, I made an off topic post. At least its one I hope will
make a difference and get some people to think. Even if its only one
(but then again, I have no illusions!).

--
JeroenK

"JeroenK" wrote in message
...
Chas.Chan schreef:

"If global warming is happening, we can then ask: is it accelerating and
is
it likely to be catastrophic?" he said. "Many people think not."

Why keep looking for reasons not to save on fosile fuels?

How about:

1) Stop being dependent on instabile regions of the world.
2) Stop being in debt with instable countries.
3) Stop polution.
4) Lower the smog in cities that cause many deaths, and have a serious
impact on health insurances.
5) Fosile fuels will eventually dry up. Think about the possibilities
for economics that already work with alternatives.
6) Due to the above, fosile fuels will increase much more in price.
Alternative fuels will actually be more economical.

And if you think well you can easily come up with more reasons to reduce
fosile fuels. Stop parroting the oil-producers I say.

bwaHAHAHA! Everything you touch, everything you eat, EVERYTHING requires
OIL!
That doesn't even touch upon oil as a fuel.

The Global Warming/Climate Change propagandists are being funded by?
http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/Sho...np&date=070206
PRO-SOCIALIST BIG GOVERNMENT - Read "The Road to Serfdom" if you are able to
concentrate.

Chas.Chan schreef:

bwaHAHAHA! Everything you touch, everything you eat, EVERYTHING requires
OIL!
That doesn't even touch upon oil as a fuel.

I said save and reduce, not stopping. Ah well

--
JeroenK

"David" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:04:49 -0500, "Chas.Chan"
wrote:


bwaHAHAHA! Everything you touch, everything you eat, EVERYTHING requires
OIL!
That doesn't even touch upon oil as a fuel.

It's a bitch, ain't it?

Perhaps you should've paid more heed 35 years ago when we said this
would happen. Now it's too late. Enjoy the descent into the
maelstrom.

Another Zealot in the religion called global warming.

On Apr 19, 12:36 pm, "Chas.Chan" wrote:
Climate change skeptics say it's hard to get heard

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - skeptics of the seriousness of global warming
complained on Wednesday of not being heard by the public or policy makers
while warning governments to take a second look at the scientific consensus
on climate change.

Scientists who doubt the scope and cause of climate change have trouble
getting funding [Becuase there is no money to be made if humans causing
global warming were to be proven false.] and academic posts [Because there
is relatively no government research grant money being offered to refute
human caused global warming.] unless they conform to an "alarmist scenario,"
said Roger Helmer, a British member of the European Parliament, at a panel
discussion on appropriate responses to rising global temperatures.

Referencehttp://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=driessenp&date=07...

"If global warming is happening, we can then ask: is it accelerating and is
it likely to be catastrophic?" he said. "Many people think not."

European Union leaders agreed in March to try to cut greenhouse gas
emissions by at least a fifth compared with 1990 levels by 2020 and as much
as 30 percent if other industrialized and emerging countries joined in.

The EU pledge came shortly before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), which groups 2,500 scientists and is considered the world
authority on the issue, said all regions of the planet would suffer from a
sharp warming.

David Henderson, an economist at the Westminster Business School in London
and former head of the Economics and Statistics Department at the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD, said
governments had given the IPCC a monopoly on climate advice.

"The very idea of creating a single would-be authoritative fount of wisdom
is itself dubious," he said, urging countries to seek a more balanced
approach than the IPCC and to stop pursuing programs to urgently reduce
carbon emissions.

"In this area of policy it's high time for governments to think again," he
said.

Mahi Sideridou, climate policy director at environmental group Greenpeace,
rejected criticism of the IPCC.

"Saying that the IPCC is not balanced is probably the most ridiculous claim
that anybody can make," she said, stressing the group's reports were based
on scientific consensus.

The IPCC findings are approved unanimously by more than 100 governments and
will guide policy on issues such as extending the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, the
main U.N. plan for capping greenhouse gas emissions, beyond 2012.

Benny Peiser, a professor at Liverpool John Moores University, questioned
the methods used by climate scientists. He said many were recognizing that
using computer modeling to predict an "inherently unpredictable future" was
illogical.

"Today's scientific consensus very often turns out to be tomorrow's
redundant theory," he said. He said that scientific journals refused to take
papers from scientists who doubted climate change.

Most scientists say climate change will cause seas to rise, glaciers to melt
and storms to intensify, potentially leading to more natural disasters
around the world.

http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?...29984220070418

The News Media Is Only Interested In Hot Air ! ~ RHF

Real Science Does Not Sell On The News.

Pseudo-Science-Hysteria Makes News Big Time !
Building a News Story "News Event" requires three things
Apprehension followed by Fear that generates Hysteria.

Bear Grylls and Les Stroud don't need no stinking oil to survive.
Coming soon to a street near you in Manhattan,New York.Eight dollars to
enter Manhattan by car.
I have been to Manhattan before,Manhattan,Kansas,that is.
cuhulin

In article .com,
RHF wrote:

On Apr 19, 12:36 pm, "Chas.Chan" wrote:
Climate change skeptics say it's hard to get heard

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - skeptics of the seriousness of global warming
complained on Wednesday of not being heard by the public or policy makers
while warning governments to take a second look at the scientific consensus
on climate change.

Scientists who doubt the scope and cause of climate change have trouble
getting funding [Becuase there is no money to be made if humans causing
global warming were to be proven false.] and academic posts [Because there
is relatively no government research grant money being offered to refute
human caused global warming.] unless they conform to an "alarmist
scenario,"
said Roger Helmer, a British member of the European Parliament, at a panel
discussion on appropriate responses to rising global temperatures.

Referencehttp://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=driessenp&date=
07...

"If global warming is happening, we can then ask: is it accelerating and is
it likely to be catastrophic?" he said. "Many people think not."

European Union leaders agreed in March to try to cut greenhouse gas
emissions by at least a fifth compared with 1990 levels by 2020 and as much
as 30 percent if other industrialized and emerging countries joined in.

The EU pledge came shortly before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), which groups 2,500 scientists and is considered the world
authority on the issue, said all regions of the planet would suffer from a
sharp warming.

David Henderson, an economist at the Westminster Business School in London
and former head of the Economics and Statistics Department at the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD, said
governments had given the IPCC a monopoly on climate advice.

"The very idea of creating a single would-be authoritative fount of wisdom
is itself dubious," he said, urging countries to seek a more balanced
approach than the IPCC and to stop pursuing programs to urgently reduce
carbon emissions.

"In this area of policy it's high time for governments to think again," he
said.

Mahi Sideridou, climate policy director at environmental group Greenpeace,
rejected criticism of the IPCC.

"Saying that the IPCC is not balanced is probably the most ridiculous claim
that anybody can make," she said, stressing the group's reports were based
on scientific consensus.

The IPCC findings are approved unanimously by more than 100 governments and
will guide policy on issues such as extending the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol,
the
main U.N. plan for capping greenhouse gas emissions, beyond 2012.

Benny Peiser, a professor at Liverpool John Moores University, questioned
the methods used by climate scientists. He said many were recognizing that
using computer modeling to predict an "inherently unpredictable future" was
illogical.

"Today's scientific consensus very often turns out to be tomorrow's
redundant theory," he said. He said that scientific journals refused to
take
papers from scientists who doubted climate change.

Most scientists say climate change will cause seas to rise, glaciers to
melt
and storms to intensify, potentially leading to more natural disasters
around the world.

http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?...29984220070418

The News Media Is Only Interested In Hot Air ! ~ RHF

Real Science Does Not Sell On The News.

Pseudo-Science-Hysteria Makes News Big Time !
Building a News Story "News Event" requires three things
Apprehension followed by Fear that generates Hysteria.

There are groups like mediamatters.org and move-on.org that organize
actions around issues they care about. They have the ear of the majority
of liberal media outlets and a recent example was turning one derogatory
statement from Imus into a firing where normally it would have been
forgotten.

Mediamatters recorded this particular slur and passed it around to
broadcast media outlets and people like Jackson and Sharpton that kept
up the criticism until he was fired.

You will not understand how this happened by reading the NYT.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Apr 19, 12:36 pm, "Chas.Chan" wrote:
Climate change skeptics say it's hard to get heard

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - skeptics of the seriousness of global warming
complained on Wednesday of not being heard by the public or policy makers
while warning governments to take a second look at the scientific consensus
on climate change.

Scientists who doubt the scope and cause of climate change have trouble
getting funding [Becuase there is no money to be made if humans causing
global warming were to be proven false.] and academic posts [Because there
is relatively no government research grant money being offered to refute
human caused global warming.] unless they conform to an "alarmist scenario,"
said Roger Helmer, a British member of the European Parliament, at a panel
discussion on appropriate responses to rising global temperatures.

Referencehttp://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=driessenp&date=07...

"If global warming is happening, we can then ask: is it accelerating and is
it likely to be catastrophic?" he said. "Many people think not."

European Union leaders agreed in March to try to cut greenhouse gas
emissions by at least a fifth compared with 1990 levels by 2020 and as much
as 30 percent if other industrialized and emerging countries joined in.

The EU pledge came shortly before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), which groups 2,500 scientists and is considered the world
authority on the issue, said all regions of the planet would suffer from a
sharp warming.

David Henderson, an economist at the Westminster Business School in London
and former head of the Economics and Statistics Department at the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD, said
governments had given the IPCC a monopoly on climate advice.

"The very idea of creating a single would-be authoritative fount of wisdom
is itself dubious," he said, urging countries to seek a more balanced
approach than the IPCC and to stop pursuing programs to urgently reduce
carbon emissions.

"In this area of policy it's high time for governments to think again," he
said.

Mahi Sideridou, climate policy director at environmental group Greenpeace,
rejected criticism of the IPCC.

"Saying that the IPCC is not balanced is probably the most ridiculous claim
that anybody can make," she said, stressing the group's reports were based
on scientific consensus.

The IPCC findings are approved unanimously by more than 100 governments and
will guide policy on issues such as extending the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, the
main U.N. plan for capping greenhouse gas emissions, beyond 2012.

Benny Peiser, a professor at Liverpool John Moores University, questioned
the methods used by climate scientists. He said many were recognizing that
using computer modeling to predict an "inherently unpredictable future" was
illogical.

"Today's scientific consensus very often turns out to be tomorrow's
redundant theory," he said. He said that scientific journals refused to take
papers from scientists who doubted climate change.

Most scientists say climate change will cause seas to rise, glaciers to melt
and storms to intensify, potentially leading to more natural disasters
around the world.

http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?...29984220070418

Most scientists say..? Have you any idea how often most scientists
have been nwrong throughout history? Don't forget, at one time the
earth stood still and the Sun and the planet and stars moved around
it. Scientists said so.

It was just a little while ago, relatively, that scientists were
scaring us with stories of Global Cooling and the return of the Ice
Age. 1960's - 1970's. But this time, they are trying to assure us that
now they have it right. That is, except for thousands of other
scientists that you hear little about because of censorship. (Oregon
Insitute of Science and Medicine)

Take a look at this film also.. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...31355859226455

Remember, If you are a scientist, you depend upon funding. It's
money in the bank, pays your bill, pays for your holiday vacations,
travel, nice home etc.
If you were to say there is nothing to worry about, that the
changes are natural, and we should adapt to it, you are not likely to
get much funding.
However, if you raised frightening alarms, and got people really
scared about the future, it would be easy to get all kinds of money to
further "study"., and you would make a name for yourself, and get your
bit of fame.
In other words, these "Alarmist Scientists" have a vested
interest to frighten you about the future.
Another interesting little article...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1363818.ece
Cato

On 21 Apr 2007 17:05:57 -0700, Cato wrote:

Remember, If you are a scientist, you depend upon funding. It's
money in the bank, pays your bill, pays for your holiday vacations,
travel, nice home etc.

The climate change deniers get their funding from scared oil
companies. Even if the climate isn't changing, there are a 100 other
eco-disasters that threaten our survival.