Showing posts with label 2008 International Conference on Climate Change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 International Conference on Climate Change. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Global Warming: A Massive Rip-Off Of American Taxpayers

The waste of BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars on the global warming scam is an atrocity.  Consider this in light of the current economic recession we are enduring.  Consider jobs lost, massive and increasing government debt, and a loss of trust in science and the integrity of "scientists".  We don't really expect politicians like Al Gore and people running the United Nations to feel any shame, but what about so-called scientists like Michael Mann of Penn State or James Hansen of NASA?  Scientists, like Doctors, especially those being supported by tax dollars, are supposed to operate under the strictest measures of honesty.   There can be no manipulation of data, no politicking, no lying; but that is not what has been happening since the beginning of the push to "stop global warming".

A scientist who lies about his data is no scientist.  They're bought and paid for and can be equated with those who practice what some call "the world's oldest profession".  In other words, they are whores.  All of the honest scientists in the world, myself included, should be outraged by the actions of the immoral few.  All of the non-scientists should be embarrassed and alarmed that they have been so easily misled by the prophets of global warming and environmental catastrophe.

Read the following article and weep.
Peter



U.S. Funds Nearly 50% -- $31 Million -- of U.N.’s Global Warming Panel

By Elizabeth Harrington

January 3, 2012
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-funds-nearly-50-31-million-un-s-global-warming-panel


                                    Global Warming Liar In Chief -- Al Gore


(CNSNews.com) – A study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) determined that the United States funded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations’ authority on alleged man-made global warming, with $31.1 million since 2001, nearly half of the panel’s annual budget.



The GAO also found that this funding information “was not available in budget documents or on the websites of the relevant federal agencies, and the agencies are generally not required to report this information to Congress.”



In a Nov. 17, 2011 report, “International Climate Change Assessments: Federal Agencies Should Improve Reporting and Oversight of U.S. Funding,” the GAO found that the State Department provided $19 million for administrative and other expenses, while the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) provided $12.1 million in technical support through the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), averaging an annual $3.1 million to the IPCC over 10 years -- $31.1 million so far.



The IPCC runs an annual budget of $7 million, according to the Wall Street Journal, making the United States a major benefactor for its global warming agenda.



                             IPCC  Chairman Hairma Rajendra-Pa. (AP Photo)

An international body, the IPCC was created in 1988. Though thousands of scientists contribute to the panel, only 11 working members support the organization. Set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the IPCC is an “effort by the United Nations to provide the governments of the world with a clear scientific view of what is happening to the world’s climate,” according to its Web site.



The organization has been the subject of controversy in the last several years when thousands of e-mails from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were stolen and released in 2009, and again in November 2011, on the eve of climate talks in Durban, South Africa.



The e-mails included those between Michael Mann, the director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University and author of the infamous “hockey stick” graph that apparently showed global temperatures reaching “unprecedented” levels, and Phil Jones, director at CRU, which brought into question the validity of the IPCC’s work, with the reported statements “hide the decline,” and “Mike’s Nature Trick.”



In explaining its reason for auditing U.S. funding of the IPCC, the GAO said, “Interest in IPCC’s activities increased after the theft of e-mails among IPCC scientists was made public, and with the discovery of several errors in its 2007 set of reports.”


The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), released in 2007, included several errors, including claims that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by the year 2035, which the IPCC, in a statement, later admitted was based on inconclusive data.



After facing “key challenges” in determining the amount of funding to the IPCC, the GAO now recommends that U.S. funding be reported annually to Congress with “accurate and consistent information.”



The report said documents on U.S. financing for the IPCC were “not available in budget documents or on the websites of the relevant federal agencies, and the agencies are generally not required to report this information to Congress.”



Conflicting State Department numbers also made it more difficult for the GAO to assemble the data. The GAO “reviewed documents and interviewed officials from federal agencies and IPCC” to reach its findings.



A 2005 GAO report entitled “Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should Be Clearer and More Complete” found that federal funding for climate change was not adequately accountable. “Congress and the public cannot consistently track federal climate change funding or spending over time,” the report concluded.



The report also found federal funding for global warming had increased by 116 percent between 1993 and 2004, to $5.1 billion.



The $3.1 million annual U.S. funding goes towards the IPCC’s “core activities”: meetings of the governing bodies, co-ordination meetings, support for the developing country co-chairs, the IPCC Web site and Secretariat. The IPCC assesses scientific information, but does not conduct any research of its own.



According to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, the United States “has made the world’s largest scientific investment in the areas of climate change and global change research” with a total of nearly $20 billion over the past 13 years.

Saturday, February 6, 2010

The Destruction Of The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming

No, it's not about the "Al Gore Effect" causing the current record-setting snowfall and blizzard conditions in Washington, D.C., it is not about partisan politics, it is about the public recognition and for many, the begrudging acceptance that the idea of man-caused global warming, or climate change is utter and complete rubbish.

It is also about corruption and fraud on a massive national and international scale that has cost taxpayers Billions of dollars, Euros, Pounds and every other currency over at least two decades. It is about a corrupt and dysfunctional United Nations. It is about unethical, naive, and gullible, if not corrupt scientists, in America, and around the world. All this and more is coming to light as the house of cards that was the concept of man-caused global warming comes crashing down.

Should we be angry? Was it just a mistake? Was Al Gore just uneducated and stupid to believe the trash coming from these "climate scientists"? Do we pass this off as just "politics" as usual?
Or, as I say, we had better take what is happening as a wake up call. We had all better become skeptical and questioning about what our political leaders tell us. We had better question every decision, every claim, every policy decision, whether domestic or foreign. We had better not simply blindly assume that they have our best interests in mind. Let this be everyone's wake-up call!
Peter

The great global warming collapse


FROM-The Globe and Mail

Margaret Wente

As the science scandals keep coming, the air has gone out of the climate-change movement

In 2007, the most comprehensive report to date on global warming, issued by the respected United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made a shocking claim: The Himalayan glaciers could melt away as soon as 2035.

These glaciers provide the headwaters for Asia's nine largest rivers and lifelines for the more than one billion people who live downstream. Melting ice and snow would create mass flooding, followed by mass drought. The glacier story was reported around the world. Last December, a spokesman for the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group, warned, “The deal reached at Copenhagen will have huge ramifications for the lives of hundreds of millions of people who are already highly vulnerable due to widespread poverty.” To dramatize their country's plight, Nepal's top politicians strapped on oxygen tanks and held a cabinet meeting on Mount Everest.

But the claim was rubbish, and the world's top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change.....
Read entire article here



Thursday, March 26, 2009

For Everyone's Enlightenment About Global Warming

For those who think the debate over the myth of man-caused global warming and climate change is over, here is a lot of information that should give cause for thought.
Peter

Mar 22, 2009Video Interviews at the ICCC, Elsewhere
Reporters from TheNewAmerican.com

The second International Conference on Climate Change concluded its 2-1/2 -day run March 10, 2009 in New York City after confronting the theme “Global warming: Was it ever really a crisis?”

The answer was a resounding “No.” Here are some of the early youtube videos from the conference. There will be many more available in the weeks ahad and we will maintain them in a master list.

Henry Lampman, reporter for The New American interviews Willie Soon, Phd, Chief Science Advisor at Science and Public Policy Institute at the International Global Climate Change Conference in New York City March 2009

Henry Lampman, reporter for The New American interviews Dennis Avery, Senior Fellow at Hudson Institute on Global Warming at the International Conference on Global Climate Change in New York City March 2009

Ed Hiserholt, reporter for The New American interviews Dr David Evans at the March 2009 International Conference on Global Climate Change in NYC.

Hal Shurtleff, reporter for The New American interviews Roy Innes National Chairman Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) at the March 2009 Conference of Global Climate Change in New York City.

Ed Hiserholt, reporter for The New American interviews Lord Christopher Monckton at the March 2009 International Conference on Global Climate Change.

Hal Shurtleff, reporter for The New American interviews Tom DeWeese, President American Policy Center. Hal asks Mr. DeWeese about Law of the Sea TREATY (LOST) and the ICCC.

John Coleman sings the Nah-Nah Goodbye Global Warming song at the Conference on Global Climate Change in New York CIty March 2009 Hal Shurtleff, reporter for The New American interviews John Coleman on “What’s/Who is behind the ‘Global Warming Hoax’ at the International Conference on Global Warming Climate Change in New York

Henry Lamkin, reporter for The New American interviews Joanne Nova, author of “The Skeptic’s Handbook”. Joanne Nova believed in manmade warming by carbon dioxide emissions from 1990-2007. Not any more!

Henry Lampkin, reporter for The New American interviews Dr. Tom Segalstad, Head of the Geological Museum at Univ. of Oslo during the International Conference on Global Climate Change in New York City - March 2009 The the full proceedings with videos of the keynote addresses and Introductions and the powerpoint and PDFs here. More videos of the talks will be posted in upcoming days.

Gore was invited again but ignored the invitation. He is featured in a mock debate here with 7 scientists on The American Thinker here.

And finally, this interview with liberal democrat Harold Ambler here.

Hansen’s talk in Oslo courtesy of Paal Brekke of the Norwegian Space Centre.
There are many ‘End of Days’ theories about the year 2012, but what many may not know is that even some scientists say there is a possibility that a solar event could occur and present problems for hundreds of millions of people by affecting power grids and satellite communications. But although such an impactful solar storm will eventually occur, no one can say where or when (2012 or2065?). FOX25’s Kevin Lemanowicz interviews Dr. Willie Soon and Joe D’Aleo here.

See this new video Stop Global Whining By Justin C here.
-->

Monday, March 10, 2008

The Manhattan Declaration of 2008, Freedom From The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming

This sums up the position of the hundreds of experts on global warming and climate change who just attended this overdue conference in New York. The debate is not over, there is no scientific consensus that man is causing climate change. The battle must now move into the political realm.
Peter

The Manhattan Declaration - from the 2008 International Climate Conference
2008 International Conference on Climate Change
We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change.

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;
Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing, human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:
Hereby declare:
That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

Now, therefore, we recommend
That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth.”

That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008. See the Manhattan Declaration here.
-->

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change

Note that the conference described below received very little coverage in the mainstream media. That alone speaks volumes about who controls the media and why.
Peter


The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM
The opening remarks of the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change by Joseph L. Bast, President of the Heartland Institute site can be seen here. It kicked off the best climate conference I have attended in my 30 years in the professional societies. The two day meeting featured over 100 excellent presentations made by scientists from Australia, Canada, England, France, Hungary, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Sweden, and of course the United States. They came from the University of Alabama, Arizona State, Carleton, Central Queensland, Delaware, Durham, and Florida State University, George Mason, Harvard, The Institute Pasteur in Paris, James Cook, John Moores, Johns Hopkins, and the London School of Economics, the University of Mississippi, Monash, Nottingham, Ohio State, Oregon State, Oslo, Ottawa, Rochester, Rockefeller, and the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, the Russian Academy of Sciences, Suffolk University, the University of Virginia, Westminster School of Business (in London), and the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

There were keynote addresses by Pat Michaels, Bob Balling, Ross McKitrick, Bill Gray, Tim Ball, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer and John Stossel. All were excellent and very well received. The most inspirational moments though were thanks to an address by the very courageous President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, the only head of state of a major nation who “gets it”. A Ph.D. Economist by education, he was first elected president of the Czech Frepublic in 2003. The text of his speech will be posted in its entirety on the Heartland website shortly but here are a few highlights.

“What I see in Europe (and the U.S. and other countries as well) is a powerful combination of irresponsibility, of wishful thinking, of implicit believing in some form of Mathusianism, of a cynical approach of those who themselves are sufficiently well off, together with the strong possibility of changing the economic nature of things through a radical political project.
As a politician who personally experienced communist central planning of all kinds of human activities, I feel obliged to bring back the already forgotten arguments used in the famous plan versus market debate in the 1930s in economic theory (between Mises and Hasyek on the one side and Lange and Lerner on the other), the arguments we have been using for decades - till the moment of the fall of communism. Then they were quickly forgotten. The innocence with which the climate alarmists and their fellow travelers in politics and mediia now present and justify their ambitions to mastermind human society belongs to the same “fatal conceit.” To my great despair, this is not sufficiently challenged neither in the field of social sciences, nor in the field of climatology. Especially the social sciences are suspicously silent.

We have to restart the discussion about the very nature of government and about the relationship between the individual and society. Now it concerns the whole makind, not just the citizens of one particular country. To discuss this means to look at the canonically structured theoretical discussion about socisalism (or communism) and to learn an uncompromising lesson from the inevitable collapse of communism 18 years ago. It is not about climatology. It is about freedom. This should be the main message of our conference.”

Icecap Note: The attendees left the conference with renewed vigor and enthusiam and many new contacts and ideas. Many told of countless others who wanted to join them but could not get time off from their jobs, could not afford the trip to New York City, or feared their attendance might affect their employment, a sad state of affairs. As I have noted this is not the sum total of the Climate Realists but the tip of the iceberg of what is very likely a silent majority of scientists in climatology, meteorology and allied sciences who do not endorse what is said to be the consensus position. There was a variety of opinions as there should be in science and all were tolerated. There was no group think or stagnant thinking as we find at other so called Climate Conferences. We thank the Heartland and the many other co-sponsors for their efforts in making this possible and so successful.
-->