SP4: Oh God!Dec 28th, 2007 - 19:19:13

Music to my ears! I can't wait to hear the responses!

Report this comment

tonny from belgiumDec 28th, 2007 - 19:23:26

Imagine somebody dismissing global warming because it is supposed to be a judeo-*christian guilt complex.Hardly scientific.Reminds me of somebody calling atheism a religion.Always good for a joke .Some people use whatever arguments they find,some are ready to believe anything as long as Al Gore is in the cross hairs.

Report this comment

tonny from belgiumDec 28th, 2007 - 19:27:02

BY the way ,I googled in vain to find the news in question in the french press,found nothing,presumably just another fart in a bottle brewed by a marginal site,not worth mentionning in the mainstream press.No controversy in France at all.

Report this comment

EditorDec 28th, 2007 - 19:47:08

You can find it here
amazonDOTfr/v%C3%A9rit%C3%A9-sur-plan%C3%A8te-Claude-All%C3%A8gre/dp/22 59206751

Report this comment

and...Dec 28th, 2007 - 19:52:51

The Financial Post reported that American scientists who support the global warming 'hype' receive $1.7 billion in grants every year.

So why are the skeptics skeptical?
According to Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, who once supported the theory of global warming, he told the Financial Post in February that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide by 2100 “will not dramatically increase the global temperature.”

Even if carbon dioxide increased by only 50 percent, “the expected reduction in the rise in global temperature would be less than .5 degree centigrade,” Shaviv said. “This is not significant.”

Second, any increased global temperature reflects intensified solar activity, which increases not only the overall radiation that warms the earth but also the ultraviolet radiation that forms and destroys ozone, thus releasing heat. Such solar activity ebbs and flows in cycles.

“The Sun contains 99.8% of the mass of solar system,” said meteorologist John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel. “Its constant hydrogen-fueled atomic fusion consumes more mass in a second that all the fossil fuel ever burned on Earth. It is difficult to imagine man's activities overwhelming the heat from the Sun. But, that is exactly what global warming advocates want you to believe.

“If you plot average annual temperatures on Earth, solar cycles and mankind's supposed most significant climate altering activity, the burning of fossil fuels, the solar cycles and temperatures match and the use of fossil fuels seems to be unrelated.”

Such dissenting scientists as Dr. David Evans of Australia are trying to make themselves heard at the Bali conference, which features the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Evans – a mathematician and electrical engineer who served as a carbon accountant for the Australian government – is promoting a peer-reviewed team study published in the December edition of the Royal Meteorological Society’s International Journal of Climatology. The study showed that increased atmospheric temperatures have natural causes, not man-made ones.

“We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming,” Evans said. “We have the missing (human) signature (in the atmosphere), we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years.”

Dr. Vincent Gray, a climatologist who reviewed all of the IPCC’s drafts since the panel was formed in 1990 and who shares a Nobel Prize awarded to the panel, was even more emphatic:

“All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails. It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics.”

Perhaps the most prominent skeptic is a scientist who helped lead the original charge against global warming. French geochemist Claude Allegre – an expert in atmospheric chemistry who belongs to the National Academy of Sciences and the French Academy of Science – first proposed the idea in the mid-1980s and joined nearly 1,500 other scientists in signing the 1992 “World Scientists’ Warning To Humanity,” which predicted “spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse.”

But Allegre’s research into the increase of ice in Antarctica and the diminishing snow caps on Tanzania’s Mt. Kilimanjaro caused him to change his mind. “The cause of this climate change is unknown,” Allegre wrote for the French magazine L’Express in September 2006.

Since then, Allegre has been blunt about global warming’s fear mongers, as the Financial Post reported in March:

“Calling the arguments of those who see catastrophe in climate change ‘simplistic and obscuring the true dangers,’ Dr. Allegre especially despairs at ‘the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters.’ His dream, he says, is to see ‘ecology become the engine of economic development and not an artificial obstacle that creates fear.’”

Report this comment

SP4: I would agree!Dec 28th, 2007 - 23:31:05

There IS no controversy in France! They look like they've pretty much decided!

Now, science is going to occur. They will start debunking, point by point, each shred of evidence.

This, curiously is not a bad thing, because it just might SUPPORT the science. This is all folks like myself really want is to verify some of the outragous claims made by these scientific interlopers.

Report this comment

'Heloo?'Dec 28th, 2007 - 23:42:46

'vahce president Gore......well, isn't this a sur prahse! Ah wuz jes tellin ol Dick abouut in vahtin ya to a quail shoot soon....nah, y don't have t evin bring a gun.....ol Dick l' have enuf fer both o you!'

'what?....global climate change.....uh...yeah, sure! Ah...uh...jes got done gitten it offa them uropeeen leadahs backs....well...ree negotiatin they call it....or sumpin. Al...they kept sayin somethin lahke,,'gee Prez ee dent Buush, heeelp us out here!'....or sumpin lahke thit, ya knoow? Kinda made me feel a little uneasy ya knoow?'

'well....congrats t rebuildin yur career sir....a reel stroke o genius! God, Ol Karl couldn't have done it bettah if you'd been a swift boat cap'n or sumpin....jes kiddin aboot thim swift boatahs sir. Well...gotta go o sum meetin aboot nucular power....no green house gases thire huh?...heh heh heh...bah th way...RSVP on thit quail trip with ol Dick, he's foamin at th mouth boyh! Laura an mah best...happy new yeah! Oh yeah, ol Dick found a couple o brief case with sum chinese letterin on it unda his desk when he moved in...ah told him not t open it an only handle thimm with gloves. N' if'n ya need em boyh, send ol Sandy Bergah over with thim pahnts o his an he'll bring em to ya forthwith.'

Report this comment

NoharnessDec 28th, 2007 - 23:49:14

Folks, carbon dioxide CONDUCTS heat. It is NOT an insulator. Anybody who says that carbon dioxide is not a conductor of heat has a political ax to grind or is a misanthrope or both!

This is just about as goofy as it gets. Why this silly scam has not been seen through by now is a complete mystery to me.

Report this comment

SP4: NoticeDec 29th, 2007 - 02:21:23

...how fast this one went off the front page!

Report this comment

SP4 hot air is responsible!Dec 29th, 2007 - 03:42:54

The vast majority of scientists, receiving funding or not, are in agreement that it's a future crisis. No one is willing to take sufficient actions, and the melt in the polar regions is clear evidence that problems are looming, which will cause noticeable climatic changes in a few decades. Even a few degrees make a difference. There's always one loudmouth to get headlines by disagreeing, but since the entire planet bears some risk (to what degree no one can quantify), it would be straightforward enough to fund alternative energy research as DARPA did in its areas, as well as explaining pebble-bed and other modern nuclear alternatives. There are even plans for orderly disposal of waste materials. What's needed is effort, not publicity-seeking yahoos looking for a platform.

Of particular concern is ocean warming, which adds strength to tropical storms. We are already seeing increased activity and increased hurricane strength.

www.guardian.co.uk/weather/Story/0,,2232599,00.html

The United Nations office that sends expert teams around the world to help governments deal with natural disasters was busier than ever in Latin America this year, a fact it at least partially blames on climate change. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, or OCHA, said in a statement that a record nine missions were dispatched to the region during 2007, among 14 sent around the globe, itself a higher than usual number.

Of the 14 global missions, 70% were in response to hurricanes and floods, the OCHA statement said, calling this 'possibly a glimpse of the shape of things to come given the reality of climate change.'
In Latin America the proportion was even higher.

There were the rains in November that left most of the southern Mexican state of Tabasco under water for weeks, including large parts of the city of Villahermosa.

In October, Tropical Storm Noel triggered flash floods in the Dominican Republic that killed dozens. In September, Honduras faced the category five Hurricane Felix, just as Jamaica and Belize had been battered by the similarly strong Hurricane Dean the month before.

In South America, Uruguay suffered its worst flooding in 50 years and hundreds of thousands of Bolivians were inundated and their crops ruined at the beginning of the year, warranting two UN missions alone.

Report this comment