"Lloyd" <lparker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:ad332aac-c562-41e3-87fe-f8c69fa4f242@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Apr 10, 10:40 pm, "0BN0Z" <0B...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>> "Earl Evleth" <evl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:C4238EFE.11CE6D%evleth@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > On 10/04/08 9:28, in article 47fdc18...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"0BN0Z"
>> > <0B...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> George Bush appears to have beaten Al Gore again.
>> > Where is Bush's Nobel Prize?
>> ROTFLMAO
>> Nobel Award A Political Gimmick
>> Sunday Herald Sun
>> October 14, 2007 12:00am
>> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22579885-663,00.html
>> THE award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the UN's top
>> climate
>> panel on Friday has prompted a fresh chorus of criticism from global
>> warming sceptics -- with one dubbing the award "a political gimmick".
> So it isn't the newspaper calling it that; it's one of the hucksters.
ROTFLMAO
>> The former vice-president has an Oscar for his film on climate
>> change,
>> An Inconvenient Truth, and the Nobel prize proved a laurel too far
>> for
>> some of his detractors.
>> Czech President Vaclav Klaus cast doubt on Gore's contribution to the
>> cause of peace, the ostensible purpose of the Norwegian prize.
> Oh there's a real scientific expert.
Much, much more expert and intelligent than your pal Gore!
>> In a statement, the climate change sceptic said he was "a bit
>> surprised
>> that Al Gore has received a peace prize because the connection
>> between
>> his activities and world peace are vague and not very clear".
>> In Norway, the main opposition party expressed its surprise at the
>> decision.
>> Gjermund Hagesaether, from the far-right Progress Party, said: "We
>> believe it is strange to give the prize to Al Gore for having made a
>> film on climate that is subjective, one-sided and full of one-sided
>> assertions."
>> In France, a sour note was sounded by a leading French climate
>> sceptic,
>> former Socialist education minister and award-winning geochemist
>> Claude
>> Allegre.
> What awards?
1986-06-01
The Crafoord Prize 1986
Of 1 340 000 SEK in isotope geology to Claude Allègre, Paris, France and
Gerald J. Wasserburg, Pasadena, USA. The Royal Swedish Academy of
Sciences has awarded the Crafoord Prize 1986 of 1 340 000 SEK to
professor Claude J. Allègre, Universitè de Paris, France and professor
Gerald J. Wasserburg, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA,
for their pioneering work in isotope geology.
Title:
Introduction of Claude Allègre for the V. M. Goldschmidt Award 1986
Authors:
Tilton, G. R.
Publication:
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, vol. 51, Issue 6, pp.1771-1772
(GeCoA Homepage)
Publication Date:
06/1987
Origin:
ELSEVIER
DOI:
10.1016/0016-7037(87)90355-3
Bibliographic Code:
1987GeCoA..51.1771T
>> He brushed off Friday's announcement as "a political gimmick",
>> saying:
>> "The amount of nonsense in Al Gore's film! It's all politics, it's
>> designed to intervene in American politics. It's scandalous. There's
>> a
>> presidential election upcoming in the United States, and it's well
>> known
>> that Gore wants to run."
>> The White House -- which Gore lost to George W. Bush in 2000 after
>> the
>> intervention of the US Supreme Court -- was studiously neutral on the
>> award.
>> Others queried the Nobel's focus only on climate change.
>> Bjorn Lomborg, author of A Sceptical Environmentalist, said: "The
>> Nobel
>> Prize committee should have focused on the other great forgotten
>> problems like malnourishment, malaria, the lack of free trade in
>> farming, rather than climate change."
> Hey, let's ask some, you know, scientists for a change?
OK.
Your wish is my command!
Large-Scale Protests By The Scientific Community Against The Global
Warming Doctrine.
http://members.shaw.ca/rolfwitzsche/canada/global_warming.html
One of the lies is that we are told in the media, is that the general
scientific community sup****ts the manmade global warming doctrine.
Nothing could be further from the fact. Three major petition projects
have been launched by the international scientific community, which are
poof of that.
The Heidelberg Appeal
The first of these official declarations of protest by the scientific
community was the 1992 Heidelberg Appeal. The appeal was launched from
the University City of Heidelberg in Germany as a protest statement
against the unscientific global warming assumptions and the draconian
demands based on it. This pioneering appeal netted the Heidelberg
organizers 4000 signatures from scientists from 69 countries and 63
Nobel Laureates . Of course, one shouldn't be surprised that this
massive appeal didn't even make it onto the 'agenda' of the Rio climate
conference in 1992. The conference was already then known to follow a
political agenda rather than the truth.
The Leipzig Declaration
Subsequent to this failure by the scientific community to get the truth
heard, and undeterred by the defeat, the next protest declaration was
launched from Leipzig, again in Germany, which became known as Leipzig
Declaration. This time the project was focused on getting signatures
from exclusively the world's actual climate specialists, in condemnation
of the global warming doctrine.
The Leipzig Declaration project brought together 110 protest signatures
from the leading experts in the climate science field. The project was
completed in time for the 1997 Kyoto climate conference. But once again,
the voice of the actual experts wasn't heard. Dissent evidently wasn't
'welcome' at the Kyoto conference either. After all, the conference had
been organized to rubber-stamp the global warming doctrine and to
enforce it. Evidently, the outcome of the conference had been largely
predetermined, which is usually the case with these kinds of UN
world-conference events for which the delegates are generally
hand-picked for their commitment to the predetermined conclusions.
The Oregon Petition Project
After the voice of dissent had been successfully hidden at the Kyoto
conference, another petition project was launched by the scientific
community, the so-called Oregon Petition Project (it was actually run
out of California). The petition project brought together an
unprecedented 17,000 signatures from scientists from around the world,
urging the world's government not to ratify the unscientific assumptions
behind the Kyoto Accord.
A combined re****t on the opposition from the scientific community was
published in an 1999 newspaper article (Feb. 1), of The New Federalist,
Leesburg, VA, by the atmospheric scientist Hugh W. Ellsaesser, retired
form Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory after 23 years of
atmospheric and climate research and 20 years as an Air Weather Officer
for the U.S. Air Force.
Bang Goes That Consensus
The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change
10th March 2008
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/549726/bang-goes-that-consensus.thtml
Prof Philip Stott asks a simple but im****tant question:
Why has the UK media, in pretty well all its forms, failed to re****t
'The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change', signed in New York on
March 4, 2008?" The meeting at which the 'Declaration' was agreed ['The
2008 International Conference on Climate Change', March 2 - March 4] was
attended by over 500 people (scientists, economists, policy makers,
etc.), with over 100 speakers delivering keynote addresses, or
participating in panel discussions. Sadly, I think we know the answer,
and it is one that reflects very badly on our supine UK media [the only
exception of note appears to be The Sunday Telegraph, March 9: 'Climate
dissent grows hotter as chill deepens']. If ever evidence were needed of
the dangerous 'control' of our media by pernicious grand narratives,
then this is surely it.
And the Manhattan Declaration itself? This is it:
'Global warming' is not a global crisis
We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields,
economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times
Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International
Conference on Climate Change,
Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the
scientific method;
Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will,
independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is
not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;
Recognising that the causes and extent of recently observed climatic
change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science
community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed 'consensus'
among climate experts are false;
Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations
on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction
will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future
trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly
diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to
adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing,
human suffering;
Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth
than colder:
Hereby declare:
That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a
dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that
should be dedicated to solving humanity's real and serious problems.
That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern
industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause
catastrophic climate change.
That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on
industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of
CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of
developing nations without affecting climate.
That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any
attempted mitigation and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the
attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real
problems of their peoples.
That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.
Now, therefore, we recommend -
That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but
misguided works such as An Inconvenient Truth.
That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce
emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.
Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008.
500 scientists, economists, policymakers and business leaders, eh? Bang
goes that consensus!
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
". researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany
re****t the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years,
accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over
the last 100 years."
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
|
