Key excerpts from the letter written by the team of scientists to the UN Secretary General:

"The IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it."

"The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts."

Yes, you read that right: the summaries are political in nature, not scientific; being approved 'line by line by government representatives.' And the summaries are what gets quoted in the media...

Contrary to the impression left by the summary reports:
* Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

* The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

* Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg...2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

Here is the list (which spans the globe) of those signing the document: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004

 

So if the environmental movement actually has an economic agenda, then why do they spend all their time on environmental issues? Shouldn't they instead be economists? It seems you are viewing the environmental agenda through your own reality and world view, not theirs. Consider that they may think differently than you.

Suggesting that we as Americans must maintain our current consumer lifestyle to prevent economic catastrophy sounds like an alcoholics's need to keep drinking to be sure the liquor store doesn't go bankrupt. Economic health in poor countries should not depend on "trickle-down" theory as prevention.

To suggest that global climate change does not exist because it will ruin the economy is a logical disconnect. Just as suggesting that environmentalists are actually economists.

That said, keep in mind that the UN is not an environmental group. They are creating policy outside of that realm. So could it be instead that the UN is creating bad policy? It sure seems more likely to me than an environmentalist being an economist in drag.

 

It's freezing outside today, if I idle my 993 for several hours, leave the fridge open, and do a half load of laundry will it warm up?

 

I'm baffled where you thought either was suggested, implied or somehow even vaguely hinted at.

 

There is no real benefit to reducing US consumption, so what would be the purpose? US consumption is 2/3 of it's economy and a large portion of the world's economy. By reducing US consumption by, say, 10% would be deep into the recession mode for not only the US economy, but for the world economy. It would be economic suicide. Millions of jobs would be lost world-wide. Economic aid and donations from wealthy countries to poor countries would dry up along with trade and advances in technology that would otherwise help poor countries. Like it or not, the United States of America is STILL a country with great economic, military and social power for good in the world. Killing the US economy doesn't help the world in any way, shape or form, it would just de-stabilize an already unstable world. Call it "shooting oneself in the foot" or "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face" or "killing the goose that lays the golden egg".

 

Environmentalists don't offer solutions to the supposed problem? If they do, don't they realize the cost? If you went to your mechanic and he told you that there was a problem with your car, wouldn't you expect him to have a solution for you as well as an estimate?

If environmentalists know that UN is using their work to make bad policy (and how could they NOT know), why continue to do business with the UN or any government agency that also mis-uses environmental data? If a person gives a gallon of gas and a pack of matches to a kid, does that person get to step away and claim no responsibility or connection to a recent spate of arson fires and should that person continue to give the kid a gallon of gas and matches every week?

If environmentalists are aware that their work results in bad policy, why don't they say so? If I give some data to my management to help them and they use it to make policy decisions that adversely affect my customers, I'd sure as hell wouldn't waste a second to say something, and loudly, too.

If environmental scientists are truly scientists, why not acknowledge that the case for Man-created global warming theories are weak and inconclusive, just as Man-created cooling theory was 30 years ago? Why not acknowledge that the Earth is within it's normal temperature range? Why try to discredit the scientists who do acknowledge these and things and that Man likely can not affect climate change? Why does something need to become fact if 51% share an opinion?

 

Agreed. I wonder the same thing. How do they explain the global warming that occurred 1M years before humans got here? Humans haven't been around long enough to know what is a natural cycle and I don't think they can truly tell if what we are doing is having a major impact or not. The issue in my opinion is not whether there is an impact, obviously there is, but whether there is a statistically significant impact. And how about underground coal fires that are burning around the world, some for centuries.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/...03/2759983.stm

It's a lot easier to beat up on car owners than address other areas that are contributing lots more toxic gases into the environment. Granted the solution is a considerably more difficult but the impact to the environment would be felt more than what they propose now if this problem could be controlled.

Next they'll want to dump concrete into volcanoes to plug up that source. The old finger in the dike routine.

 

...title of the thread, where it has led in the last couple pages, and the posts to discount the movement based on a quote from one speaker to the UN. It was implied.

 

My suggestion is that let blame lie where it should...if the UN is mis-managing this, don't blame the scientists for it. Scientists have made suggestions, no doubt. But scientists are not the decision-makers at the table right now. And by the way...I do not consider Gore a scientist or environmentalist. He is a politician.

Scientists have stated the data are inconclusive. No debate there. What they have also stated is that the situation is compelling enough to do something about it. That "something" is where the current debate lies with the UN, in my opinion anyway.

 

Adrienne,

I would modify one thing you said. "Scientists have stated that "some" of the data are inconclusive". Clearly the warming trend data are not inconclusive, and greenhose gas concentration increases are no longer debated in any significant way inside the scientific community. What is debated is the anthropogenic component, the modeling predictions and the impact scenarios. Clearly the questions "are we impacting this?" and "can we do anything about it?" are not easily answered by the current state of the science. But when one looks at this from a true "risk analysis" perspective it is hard to argue against advocating some sort of action.

But my personnal opinion is that we, as a species are much better at being reactive as oppose to proactive given the politcal dynamics in play. I believe that very soon, the long term economic interests wil come into play and that will spur the action needed to address this.