Comments on: Denial not acceptable

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 04:24:01 +0000

For more detail on Jame’s list of 650 dissenters have a look at
Inhofe: less honest than the Discovery Institute.

The conclusion is that this list is even more dishonest than the Discovery Institute’s dissenters from Darwinism list.

Interesting that James is supporting both lists.

By: James

James — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:50:12 +0000

Well Matty, it does say that they are “scientists.” And if you look at the quotes it seems obvious that many are in the field:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

At what point do we accept that there is no consensus? How many scientists does it take to undermine said “consensus?”

Another interesting quote

Ahluwalia, (Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia) who has authored numerous scientific studies in the fields of geology and paleontology, referred to the UN climate panel as the “elite IPCC.” “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds.”

It seems that the IPCC does not care for contrary evidence.

http://www.rightsidenews.com/200808191759/energy-and-environment/global-warming-skeptics-prominently-featured-at-international-scientific-meeting.html

By: Matty Smith

Matty Smith — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:06:08 +0000

The first thing you need to ask yourself, James, when posting a list like this, is ‘are all of these people scientists?’ The second thing you need to consider, when posting a list like this, is ‘are any of these people in the field of climate science?’ The third thing you need to consider, when posting a list like this, is ‘is 650 a large number, given how many scientists exist?’

So I’ll leave those questions for your consideration, and hope that does not constitute ‘feeding’. Best of luck in your inquiries.

By: James

James — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:48:50 +0000

“More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Now what are we to think?

By: Ken

Ken — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:12:10 +0000

Of course we don’t need a parliamentary review of the science – this body is not capable of doing it. This review will only be a political one – although Hide will clearly attempt to use it to insert some of the unscientific claims of the deniers. Hopefully most of our MPs will see through that trick.

By: Ross

Ross — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:41:16 +0000

Cedric, but “the science is settled”, so we don’t need a review. Lots of people keep saying so, even Obama said it yesterday!

By: alison

alison — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:39:55 +0000

I see in this morning’s Herald a report on John Key’s first post-cabinet press conference. In which he is quoted as saying that the review of climate change legislation is Act’s point of reference, not National’s… We shall see.

And I wonder how Act’s claims sit with the papers just published suggesting that our negative impact on the climate is likely to be much more long-lasting than we’d like to think.

By: Cedric Katesby

Cedric Katesby — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:31:34 +0000

“Science, by it’s very nature, is constantly being reviewed.”

That must come as a real shock to Ross.

By: Ken

Ken — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:46:21 +0000

Science, by it’s very nature, is constantly being reviewed. This is particularly true of that pertaining to climate change – because of the important consequences. However, proper review takes place in the scientific, not political, community. You don’t seriously suggest that a NZ parliamentary committee can properly review such science do you?

By: Ross

Ross — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:04:03 +0000

Now is the time to review the science that is reportedly behind the Climate Change propaganda, to see if it is the eco-fascist religious pseudoscience that it patently appears to be.