The UN, GW and Abandoning Scrutiny
By Stanford Matthews
Blog @ MoreWhat.com
It is doubtful the United Nations ever misses an opportunity to work
the crowd and the media. If you are green or a tree hugger or a
charter member of PETA (another op for Alicia Silverstone to disrobe)
one can only suspect you are ecstatic over news of the UN Global
Warming Summit. The rest of us may not be so sure. Not
unlike the group of scientists who hold a different view of the issue
than is played relentlessly in the MSM.
17,200 Scientists Dispute Global Warming
Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny
World scientists meet on global warming
But many top scientists reject the new figures...
This post does not accept nor reject the idea of global warming.
But that is the whole point. While the global warming issue was
raised near a fever pitch in anticipation of the IPCC report on global
warming, the first question that should have entered your mind is who
the hell is the IPCC and what credentials do they have to support the
assumed credibility of their findings?
Many surprising supporters of the idea of man-made global warming are
very large corporations. Those announcements were followed by the
skeptics wondering what financial incentive they had to cause the
voluntary participation in fighting a demon on which we have too much
or too little information. Please withhold your criticism as it
should be repeated again, this post does not accept nor reject the
notion of global warming. But if one is the least bit skeptical
or cynical of mass approval or rejection of any idea, this would be a
good candidate for suspicious motives. For instance, if you have
been on the planet long enough to remember the push for alternative
fuels and energy conservation and other environmental issues from
thirty or more years ago, the lack of enthusiasm then and over
decades since should be sufficient to alert your radar. Something
may be wrong here.
The IPCC who provided the grand report on global warming earlier this
year that renewed the discussion and raised to that fever pitch is part
of the United Nations. How convenient is that? One of the
reports listed at the top of the page suggests not all the panel
members are scientists and those who voiced objection to the report
were deleted from the publication. While that assessment seems a
little over the top, the same sort of accusation in reverse was leveled
at the Bush Administration earlier this year. So who knows?
Again, that is the whole point. What do we really know?
If that question sounds absurd to you in light of recent developments
you may want to consider how absurd it would be to act on all the
recommendations if there are flaws in the data. Any undertaking
this massive and 'global' requires more scrutiny than everyday decision
making.
The report above certainly does not help. Part of the problem is
when those with celebrity status fail to measure the undo influence of
their public positions on critical issues. To take an absolute position
rejecting any alternative viewpoints is dangerous even if combined with
altruistic intentions. This may be another case of asking the
right questions. Could a former actor and current governor of the
state of California and a former VP who lost his only attempt at
becoming President have any other motives for their respective stands
on global warming? It is no different than asking if major
corporations have jumped on the GW bandwagon to launch profitable new
businesses that will cater to the environmental panic?
However, if you have not settled on a position for this issue and are
more alarmed about potential panic and half-baked solutions than the
idea of global warming itself, take heart. The article below
aside from announcing some new agreement on HCFC elimination mentions
the beginning of that organized effort as 1987. The inefficiency
and time lag of all such initiatives is as staggering as the number of
issue-based organizations in existence. Whether man-made global
warming is a legitimate issue or not, there is better than even odds
that solutions won't be timely in either case.
And one can only guess at why President Bush has changed his views on
the subject. But the more compelling fact about the article below
is there always seems to be a media story about those clamoring for
attention pointing their collective fingers at the US.
To emphasize once more that this post does not accept nor reject the
idea of global warming is attached to the final thought expressing the
need to subject the global warming issue to strict and continuous
scrutiny befitting any other scientific endeavor. This is one of
those times when embracing the flat earth or the sun revolving around
the earth would not only be embarrassing but entirely counterproductive
not to mention a colossal mistake.
Blog @ MoreWhat.com
It is doubtful the United Nations ever misses an opportunity to work
the crowd and the media. If you are green or a tree hugger or a
charter member of PETA (another op for Alicia Silverstone to disrobe)
one can only suspect you are ecstatic over news of the UN Global
Warming Summit. The rest of us may not be so sure. Not
unlike the group of scientists who hold a different view of the issue
than is played relentlessly in the MSM.
17,200 Scientists Dispute Global Warming
Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny
World scientists meet on global warming
But many top scientists reject the new figures...
This post does not accept nor reject the idea of global warming.
But that is the whole point. While the global warming issue was
raised near a fever pitch in anticipation of the IPCC report on global
warming, the first question that should have entered your mind is who
the hell is the IPCC and what credentials do they have to support the
assumed credibility of their findings?
Many surprising supporters of the idea of man-made global warming are
very large corporations. Those announcements were followed by the
skeptics wondering what financial incentive they had to cause the
voluntary participation in fighting a demon on which we have too much
or too little information. Please withhold your criticism as it
should be repeated again, this post does not accept nor reject the
notion of global warming. But if one is the least bit skeptical
or cynical of mass approval or rejection of any idea, this would be a
good candidate for suspicious motives. For instance, if you have
been on the planet long enough to remember the push for alternative
fuels and energy conservation and other environmental issues from
thirty or more years ago, the lack of enthusiasm then and over
decades since should be sufficient to alert your radar. Something
may be wrong here.
Leaders Gather for UN Climate Change Meeting
By Phuong Tran
Dakar
23 September 2007
Tran report (mp3) - Download 596k
Listen to Tran report (mp3)
Heads of states from more than 80 countries are gathering in New York
City for what will be the largest U.N.-organized event for world
leaders on climate change. This is a preliminary meeting to work toward
a new international agreement on the issue. But scientists say places
like sub-Saharan Africa need more than just an agreement to really fix
the problem. Phuong Tran has more from VOA's West and Central Africa
Bureau in Dakar.
The IPCC who provided the grand report on global warming earlier this
year that renewed the discussion and raised to that fever pitch is part
of the United Nations. How convenient is that? One of the
reports listed at the top of the page suggests not all the panel
members are scientists and those who voiced objection to the report
were deleted from the publication. While that assessment seems a
little over the top, the same sort of accusation in reverse was leveled
at the Bush Administration earlier this year. So who knows?
Again, that is the whole point. What do we really know?
If that question sounds absurd to you in light of recent developments
you may want to consider how absurd it would be to act on all the
recommendations if there are flaws in the data. Any undertaking
this massive and 'global' requires more scrutiny than everyday decision
making.
Schwarzenegger, Gore add star power to climate meet
By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent
Mon Sep 24, 1:10 AM ET
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Vice President Al Gore
are set to join world leaders for a U.N. meeting on Monday aimed at
spurring global negotiations on how to cool a warming planet.
Schwarzenegger, a former bodybuilder and movie star who has pushed for
environmental reforms in California, acknowledged that rich and poor
countries have differing responsibilities when it comes to global
warming, but said it is time to stop the blame game.
The report above certainly does not help. Part of the problem is
when those with celebrity status fail to measure the undo influence of
their public positions on critical issues. To take an absolute position
rejecting any alternative viewpoints is dangerous even if combined with
altruistic intentions. This may be another case of asking the
right questions. Could a former actor and current governor of the
state of California and a former VP who lost his only attempt at
becoming President have any other motives for their respective stands
on global warming? It is no different than asking if major
corporations have jumped on the GW bandwagon to launch profitable new
businesses that will cater to the environmental panic?
However, if you have not settled on a position for this issue and are
more alarmed about potential panic and half-baked solutions than the
idea of global warming itself, take heart. The article below
aside from announcing some new agreement on HCFC elimination mentions
the beginning of that organized effort as 1987. The inefficiency
and time lag of all such initiatives is as staggering as the number of
issue-based organizations in existence. Whether man-made global
warming is a legitimate issue or not, there is better than even odds
that solutions won't be timely in either case.
'Historic' deal reached on cutting ozone threats
by Philippe SauvagnarguesSat Sep 22, 10:19 PM ET
Nearly 200 countries have agreed to accelerate the elimination of
chemicals that threaten the ozone and exacerbate global warming, the
United Nations Environmental Program announced Saturday.
UNEP chief Achim Steiner hailed the agreement by governments to move
forward bans on dangerous hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) as a "vital
signal" in efforts to slow climate change and welcomed China's
willingness to back the deal.
"It is perhaps the most important breakthrough in an international
environment negotiation process for at least five or six years,"
Steiner said.
And one can only guess at why President Bush has changed his views on
the subject. But the more compelling fact about the article below
is there always seems to be a media story about those clamoring for
attention pointing their collective fingers at the US.
U.N. climate chief urges U.S. action
By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP
Sat Sep 22, 1:53 PM ET
The Bush administration has made a "significant" shift on global
warming, but still falls short on the "much more aggressive" policies
needed to head off its damaging impact, the U.N. climate chief said
Saturday.
"It's very clear that we're not on track," Yvo de Boer told The
Associated Press.
More than 70 presidents and prime ministers and 80 other national
representatives are gathering here for Monday's U.N. "climate summit."
To emphasize once more that this post does not accept nor reject the
idea of global warming is attached to the final thought expressing the
need to subject the global warming issue to strict and continuous
scrutiny befitting any other scientific endeavor. This is one of
those times when embracing the flat earth or the sun revolving around
the earth would not only be embarrassing but entirely counterproductive
not to mention a colossal mistake.
posted by Anonymous at 6:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home