?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Bali Climate Conference Ignores Dissenters (American Thinker) - bobb's journal [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Bob Bain

[ website | Bob Bain's Home Page ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Bali Climate Conference Ignores Dissenters (American Thinker) [Dec. 10th, 2007|08:34 am]
Bob Bain
[Current Mood |calmcalm]

American Thinker (link)..

December 09, 2007
Bali Climate Conference Ignores Dissenters
Rick Moran

Proving once again that the United Nations is disinterested in allowing for a free and open debate on global warming, the climate change conference being held in Bali, Indonesia has refused to give credentials to a prominent group that dissents from the view that global warming is a huge problem and is caused by the works of man:


-----------------------

Dr. Vincent Gray, who is an expert reviewer on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's(OPCC) published works, has debunked many of the claims of the IPCC in the past and was part of the ICSC group denied access to the conference.

Just what are the "scientists" at the climate conference afraid of? True scientists welcome open debate about their findings, recognizing that only through constant challenges can their hypothesis withstand the rigor of scholarship and criticism by their peers.

But the fake scientists at the UN conference are more interested in a political agenda than they are discussing the science involved in their findings. For them, the science of global warming is "settled."

With that kind of attitude, scientists from the 15th century would have dismissed Columbus's proposed expedition based on the "settled" science that the earth was flat. The fact is, science is never "settled" and good scientsts would never say such a thing - especially about climate which takes into account several different scientific disciplines and is dealing with a subject that we are still learning about - how earth's climate works. It is beyond rational that any reputable scientist would lend their names to a conference that refuses to follow the most basic rules of scientific inquiry.
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: level_head
2007-12-22 10:04 pm (UTC)
Greetings! I am an acquaintance of AceLightning.

I'm a long-time science enthusiast interested (for decades) in climate doings among other things. It seems that you and I are of similar minds with regard to the current hype over the global warming "catastrophe".

But I am also something of a history buff -- and the people that Columbus was dealing with were aware that the world was round. The argument was over the circumferance -- with Columbus arguing for a number of about 18,000 miles (making the Pacific Asian lands reasonably accessible) whereas the prevailing wisdom was more like 30,000 miles. Since the actual number is around 25,000 miles, Columbus was further wrong -- but the continents where I live were found in the extra space he hadn't planned on.

Best wishes! And a warm Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

P.S. If you don't mind, I'd like to post your link in the Global_Warming community; it is intended for just such news.

===|==============/ Level Head
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bobbain
2007-12-22 11:19 pm (UTC)
I have insufficient knowledge with regards to the effect that human beings may have on climate change. The fact is that the climate has changed considerably over the millions of years of Earth's existence (much of it unpopulated by the human species) - from ice ages to periods of high rainfall. In respect to the seasons just a slight change in the angle of the Earth in respect of the Sun makes humans uncomfortable and this happens each and every year.

I have been to Pompei (near Naples) and have seen depictions on the walls of images of the Earth. It was depicted as round and was clearly drawn before the eruption of Vesuvius which wikipedia informs me took place in August 79 AD.

Having said that I watched some news footage from Beijing yesterday regarding the modern architecture being constucted there. Noticable in the news items were high levels of air pollution. In 1992 I spent a week in Mexico City which at the time was one of the most polluted cities on the planet. As the aircraft descended into Mexico City airport the image was one of a large yellow concentration of pollutants. The air was considered unsafe and potentially hazardous to human beings according to United Nations standards. There were discussions at the time of blowing the pollution away from the city using some form of windmill.

The pollution was invisible but it could be felt on the skin. I felt the need to bathe several times during the evening as I could feel the effect of chemicals on my skin. Much pollution is invisible consisting of gases that cannot be seen.

Indeed there's a "political agenda" with regards to climate change discussions and this shouldn't be ignored.

Apologies for any spelling (or gramatical) errors.

BTW: I have posted a few videos of Mexico (but not Mexico City and it's pollution) on my YouTube "channel" at

http://www.youtube.com/bluebobb

(the Mexico City clips I haven't posted are quite revealing - I may post them later)



(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: level_head
2007-12-22 11:36 pm (UTC)
Antarctica's ice buildup seems to have begun when Australia detached itself and moved out of the neighborhood, allowing oceans to not have to detour north around it. This was around 35 million years ago or so.

And the current ice ages began when North and South America joined together, when the Isthmus of Panama rose (volcanic activity) and forced ocean flows to detour north in what is now called the Gulf Stream. This was only in the last three million years or so; the gap gradually closed over the two million years before that. So, we could fix ice ages by a massive bombing campaign in Panama -- but I'm not recommending that. ];-)

Oddly, the Global Warming movement seems to be pro-pollution. In other words, since new coal burning plants would still omit CO2 (despite being much cleaner with regard to actual pollutants) the GW people campaign against building the new ones. The perverse effect is that the older, polluting technology remains in place.

Similarly, by denying inexpensive fossil-fuel electricity to undeveloped countries, we force them to burn their rainforests. It's bizarre.

I read recently in Nature (August 2007 issue, I think) that the air pollution in Asia has the opposite sign from all climate models. They describe it as cooling the Earth, and offsetting the effect of CO2 -- but careful experimentation with airborne measurements showed that it heats the Earth in the area, and accounts for practically all warming in that region.

One -- the models are wrong. Two -- it's a good thing CO2 has a minor effect, as the Northern Hemisphere's Asian and European and Mexican pollution are quite enough to deal with.

===|==============/ Level Head
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)