Image via WikipediaFaith in a Globalized Age
Tony Blair
For years, it was assumed, certainly in the West, that, as society developed, religion would wither away. But it hasn’t, and, at the start of a new decade, it is time for policymakers to take religion seriously.http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/blair4/English
Tony Blair: Global Warming Science Uncertain, But Act Anyway
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/12/tony-blair-global-warming-science-uncertain-but-act-anyway
Tony Blair (Photo Credit: Eric Draper)
After all, nothing more than slight anecdotal-type science supports the theory; it is 90% or more comprised of guesswork and conjecture. It also requires a tremendous level of faith in the unseen and unproved, as it is mostly lacking in concrete evidence. In fact, the religion of AGW requires such faith that the disciple must believe in it in direct contradiction to verifiable historical fact.
As Dr. Roy Spencer said recently, “It is interesting that the modern belief that our carbon emissions have caused the climate system to rebel are not that different from ancient civilizations that made sacrifices to the gods of nature in their attempts to get nature to cooperate.”
Here is perhaps the latest and one of the most shameful examples that its adherents exhibit religious faith–blind faith that makes the faith of Christians appear grounded in concrete scientific evidence.
From the Telegraph:“It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege. It doesn’t need to be. What is beyond debate, however, is that there is a huge amount of scientific support for the view that the climate is changing and as a result of human activity,” he said.“Therefore, even purely as a matter of precaution, given the seriousness of the consequences if such a view is correct, and the time it will take for action to take effect, we should act. Not to do so would be grossly irresponsible.”
Man, how irresponsible is it to torpedo your economy and pillage your own citizens…for a farce that you grudgingly admit may not be real in the first place?
It takes a tremendous amount of faith (or stupidity) to cost millions of jobs, retard energy production, and steal people’s hard-earned money to sacrifice on the altar of something you admit may not be true.
Blair to lead campaign on climate change
Act urgently or global warming will be irreversible, former PM warns
Tony Blair is to lead a new international team to tackle the intractable problem of securing a global deal on climate change which would have the backing of China and America.The former prime minister believes he can help prepare a blueprint for an agreement to cut carbon emissions by 50% by 2050, and has the backing of the White House, the UN and Europe, including Gordon Brown.
He told the Guardian he has been working on the project with a group of climate change experts since he left office last summer, and will publish an interim report to the G8 group of industrialised nations this summer.
"This is extremely urgent. A 50% cut by 2050 has to be a central component of this. We have to try this year to get that agreed, because the moment you do agree that, then you have something for everyone to focus upon. We need a true and proper global deal, and that needs to include America and China," Blair said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/14/tonyblair.climatechange
Lord Oxburgh, the organisation's director, was called in to head an internal inquiry into the leaked emails which included one infamous message referring to a "trick" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures.
The peer's investigation cleared the scientists of malpractice. But critics claimed the report was a whitewash and Lord Oxburgh also failed to declare his involvement with Globe before he began his investigation.
Meanwhile Bob Ward, from the Grantham Institute, which works alongside Globe, praised a second inquiry by former civil servant Muir Russell, which also cleared the climate researchers.
He said it had "lifted the cloud of suspicion" and demonstrated that "the integrity of climate science is intact."
Globe International's work is paid for with donations from multi-millionaire backers and through partnerships with other environmental groups.
Globe also confirmed last night that it received direct funding from the Department of Energy and the Department of International Development (DfID). including a grant of £91,240 provided by DfID since the Coalition came to power last year.
More cash from DfID is filtered through the Complus Alliance - a "sustainable development communications alliance" of broadcasters based in Costa Rica which is also supported by the BBC World Service Trust, the Corporation's independent charity,.
Complus, which was awarded DfID cash last year and in 2006, says it has an "ongoing relationship with Globe" helping it run "shadow negotiation" teams at international summits of world leaders.
A spokeswoman for Complus said: "The BBC is a founding member not a funding member. They can make in-kind contributions, like organising events, supporting logistics, sharing content."
She added that Complus did not fund Globe but work with them on "convergent objectives".
Last night a DfID spokesman confirmed the department had given Complus £250,000 in total to provide research, advocacy and communications work on the impact of climate change.
The spokesman said: 'These contributions were awarded under the previous Government. The current Government has not given them any funding.
'We only support projects that meet our strict conditions of delivering value for money and can prove their ability to reduce global poverty.'
The BBC trust's money is drawn from the £15.2 million-a-year it gets from the Foreign Office and DFID and £800,000 from licence payers. The BBC charity failed to respond to questions about its relationship with the project and how much this involvement was costing.
The Zoological Society of London, the world famous charity behind London Zoo, also provides Globe with scientific advice "providing high level input" from its top conservationists and zoologists. Globe said it paid ZSL for its expertise.
Last night Globe's general secretary Adam Matthews said: "Globe is not a lobbying organisation. It is an international group of legislators. It was set up by the legislators themselves.
"We facilitate them coming together to discuss environmental issues. Our members have multiple views - some quite sceptical on some aspects of the climate change debate."
"We are funded by the World Bank, the EU, international parliaments and Governments, including the UK Government. The coalition Government contributes to our work through DFID."
- 'Climategate' inquiry: scientific data criticised
14 Apr 2010 - 'Climategate' professor admits to withholding information
02 Mar 2010
Lobbyists who cleared 'Climategate' academics funded by taxpayers and the BBC
A shadowy lobby group which pushes the case that global warming is a real threat is being funded by the taxpayer and assisted by the BBC
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8469883/Lobbyists-who-cleared-Climategate-academics-funded-by-taxpayers-and-the-BBC.htmlThe little-known not-for-profit company works behind the scenes at international conferences to further its aims.
One of its key supporters headed the official investigation into the so-called "Climategate emails", producing a report which cleared experts of deliberately attempting to skew scientific results to confirm that global warming was a real threat.
Another scientific expert linked to the group came forward to praise a second independent investigation into the Climategate affair which also exonerated researchers.
Set up with the backing of Tony Blair, then the Prime Minister, and run by a group of British MPs and peers the organisation, Globe International, started life as an All Party Group based in the House of Commons.
It is now run as an international climate change lobbying group flying its supporters and experts club class to international summits to push its agenda. Last year, it said, it spent around £500,000 flying its supporters to these meetings.
Blair: Global warming is advancingLONDON (AP) — The threat posed by climate change may be greater than previously thought, and global warming is advancing at an unsustainable rate, Prime Minister Tony Blair said in a report published Monday
We’re doomed
http://suzukielders.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/were-doomed/#comment-30
Poor Stan. He really did not garner any sympathy whatsoever - certainly not from me.
The 60-Second Climate Skeptic
CO2 does indeed absorb reflected sunlight returning to space from earth, having a warming effect. However, this effect is a diminishing return — each successive increment of CO2 concentrations will have a much smaller effect on temperatures than the previous increment.
In the 20th century, the UN IPCC claims Earth’s surface temperatures have increased by about a 0.6 degree Celsius Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, it is thought that man has increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 0.028% of the atmosphere to 0.038% of the atmosphere.
Using simple math, we see that if temperatures have risen 0.6C due to 36% of a doubling, we might expect them to rise by 1.67C for a full doubling to 0.056% of the atmosphere. But this assumes that the rise is linear — and we already said (and no one denies) that it is in fact a diminishing return relationship. Using a truer form of the curve, a 0.6C historic rise for 36% of a doubling implies a full doubling would raise temperatures by about 1.2C, or about 0.6C more than we have seen to date (see chart below). This means that the magnitude of global warming in the next century might be about what we have seen (and apparently survived) since 1900.
To believe sensitivity is 3, we would have to have seen temperature rises due to man historically of 1.5C, which nobody believes.
So how do they get accelerating temperatures from what they admit to be a diminishing return relation between CO2 concentration and temperature? And for which there is no empirical evidence? Answer: Positive feedback. Almost every process you can think of in nature operates by negative feedback.
There is no empirical evidence at all that positive feedbacks in climate dominate negative feedbacks.Long-term temperature record demonstrates that positive feedbacks can’t dominate, because past increases in temperature and CO2 have not run away. Characterizations of stable natural processes as being dominated by positive feedback should offend the intuition and common sense of any scientist.
The developing world will be far better off hotter by a degree and richer than it would be cooler and poorer. This is particularly true since sources like an Inconvenient Truth wildly exaggerate the negative effects of global warming.
see my longer paper on global warming skepticism
Global Warming (or is it Global Cooling?)
Hasn’t anyone ever heard of the Medieval Warm Period?
http://rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Well one of the catches in telling huge porkies and spreading copious BS around the world is that you start to believe your own BS.
http://mostlybrightideas.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/the-climate-change-hullabaloo/#comment-3080
The question isn’t whether or not the climate is changing. It’s been changing throughout the Earth’s history. There’s almost nothing in the universe that stays the same forever. Planets are bombarded by comets and asteroids, stars explode or condense into black holes, and entire galaxies collide. Yet somehow, the average temperature on our world spikes by a couple of degrees and we panic.
I think the Earth’s climate is part of a complex cycle, one we haven’t been around long enough to witness, and one we may never fully understand. We surely have some impact on that process, but it’s likely minimal. It’s going to get warmer no matter what we do or don’t do. Instead of wasting time switching to energy-efficient light bulbs, maybe we should show nature some respect and assume the climate is going to keep changing. More than anything, we need to stop worrying about breaking a few twigs, and start taking better care of each other.
The Sheep Albedo Feedback
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-sheep-albedo-feedbacki
"A real breakthrough was using the statistical technique pioneered by Frusen-Glädje and Haagendassen in their study of the solar-climate connection." said Noh-Watt "Just as in their case, to get a good match to the observed climate, we had to optimize our smoothing algorithm by smoothing some parts of the sheep record more than others, and then rescaling the results." The optimized smoothing was applied to the years 1975-1991. Noted skeptic Rasmus Benestad has criticized this technique as meaningless curve-bashing (see footnote [3] below), but according to Noh-Watt, " All these guys are interested in is getting rich by riding their bicycles to work and selling carbon credits to the EU."
Climate change: Clear and present danger
http://www.ohiostatealumni.org/media/Pages/climatechange.aspx
ChangingLINKS
http://www.changinglinks.com
Campaign for a United Nations
Parliamentary Assembly
Parliamentary Assembly
http://en.unpacampaign.org/appeal/support/index.php
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment