US Calls on Asia to Take Action to Reduce Greenhouse Gases

May 30, 2007

  • May 30, 2007 at 1:56 am
    JP says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    \”I have a feeling most countries will ignore this report because its coming from the United States,\” said Shailendra Yashwant, a regional climate campaigner for Greenpeace Southeast Asia. \”It reeks of hypocrisy and pointing fingers instead of solving problems at home.\”
    *apparently we aren\’t allowed to give other areas of the world suggestions on how to curb their energy usage. we\’re the only ones who are supposed to be told what to do…that reeks of favoritism and pointing fingers instead of other countries solving problems in their home.

  • May 31, 2007 at 12:13 pm
    Chilly says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,” Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. “But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker — better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds,” Evans wrote. “As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?'” he added. Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. “And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990\’s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn\’t believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed,” Evans wrote. “The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role,” he added. “Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics,” he concluded.

  • June 11, 2007 at 1:05 am
    Cheese Balls says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So its a conspiracy based on the flow of money to promote carbon as the villan? I guess then we can also ignore every bit of data inserted into a study even partially funded by industry. Since they are all being funded by large amounts of cash to create reasonable doubt. But hey, you feel like being skeptical? Ok but you got to promise me and my compadres that you won’t hold it against us that we have MSG in our bodies. You know you wanna eat us!

  • June 11, 2007 at 2:50 am
    Chilly says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I don’t know what to make of your last statement… but more and more of the scientists who were formerly global warming alarmists have become skeptics (see below). Plus, I cannot imagine that anything Al Gore is advocating springs from an altruistic impulse. He buys all of his bogus “carbon offsets” from a company he owns, and its sole client it Al Gore.

    Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. “When I go to a scientific meeting, there’s lots of opinion out there, there’s lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. “But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it’s like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn’t — come out to a scientific meeting sometime,” Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. “I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we’re about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere,” he said. “The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it’s not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles.”

  • June 11, 2007 at 2:54 am
    JP says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Can you please post where you got that from? Thanks!

  • June 11, 2007 at 2:56 am
    Chilly says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=&IsTextOnly=True

    If this link doesn’t work try pasting it into a Word doc and trying. There are about ten such testimonials on this site.

  • June 11, 2007 at 2:57 am
    JP says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Thanks!



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*