Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing’ At

Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing’ At UN Conference By EPW Blog Tuesday, December 11, 2007


BALI, Indonesia - An international team of scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore, descended on Bali this week to urge the world to “have the courage to do nothing” in response to UN demands.

Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.

“Climate change is a non problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing,” Monckton told participants.

“The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)” Monckton added. (LINK)

Monckton also noted that the UN has not been overly welcoming to the group of skeptical scientists.

“UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings,” Monckton explained.

“It is a circus here,” agreed Australian scientist Dr. David Evans. Evans is making scientific presentations to delegates and journalists at the conference revealing the latest peer-reviewed studies that refute the UN’s climate claims.

“This is the most lavish conference I have ever been to, but I am only a scientist and I actually only go to the science conferences,” Evans said, noting the luxury of the tropical resort. (Note: An analysis by Bloomberg News on December 6 found: “Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.” - LINK)

Evans, a mathematician who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, recently converted to a skeptical scientist about man-made global warming after reviewing the new scientific studies. (LINK)

“We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don’t cause global warming. We have the missing [human] signature [in the atmosphere], we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years,” Evans said in an interview with the Inhofe EPW Press Blog. Evans authored a November 28 2007 paper “Carbon Emissions Don’t Cause Global Warming.” (LINK)

Evans touted a new peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists appearing in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society which found “Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence.” (LINK)

“Most of the people here have jobs that are very well paid and they depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. They are not going to be very receptive to the idea that well actually the science has gone off in a different direction,” Evans explained.

[Inhofe EPW Press Blog Note: Several other recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. For most recent sampling see: New Peer-Reviewed Study finds ‘Solar changes significantly alter climate’ (11-3-07) (LINK) & “New Peer-Reviewed Study Halves the Global Average Surface Temperature Trend 1980 - 2002” (LINK) & New Study finds Medieval Warm Period ‘0.3C Warmer than 20th Century’ (LINK) For a more comprehensive sampling of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007 see “New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears” LINK ]

‘IPCC is unsound’
UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports since its inception going back to 1990, had a clear message to UN participants.

“There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any affect whatsoever on the climate,” Gray, who shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to the UN IPCC, explained. (LINK)

“All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails,” Gray, who wrote the book “The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of “Climate Change 2001,” said.

“It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics,” he added.

‘Dangerous time for science’
Evans, who believes the UN has heavily politicized science, warned there is going to be a “dangerous time for science” ahead.

“We have a split here. Official science driven by politics, money and power, goes in one direction. Unofficial science, which is more determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data, has now started to move off in a different direction” away from fears of a man-made climate crisis, Evans explained.

“The two are splitting. This is always a dangerous time for science and a dangerous time for politics. Historically science always wins these battles but there can be a lot of causalities and a lot of time in between,” he concluded.

Carbon trading ‘fraud?’
New Zealander Bryan Leland of the International Climate Science Coalition warned participants that all the UN promoted discussions of “carbon trading” should be viewed with suspicion.

“I am an energy engineer and I know something about electricity trading and I know enough about carbon trading and the inaccuracies of carbon trading to know that carbon trading is more about fraud than it is about anything else,” Leland said.

“We should probably ask why we have 10,000 people here [in Bali] in a futile attempt to ‘solve’ a [climate] problem that probably does not exist,” Leland added.

‘Simply not work’
Owen McShane, the head of the International Climate Science Coalition, also worried that a UN promoted global approach to economics would mean financial ruin for many nations.

“I don’t think this conference can actually achieve anything because it seems to be saying that we are going to draw up one protocol for every country in the world to follow,” McShane said. (LINK)

“Now these countries and these economies are so diverse that trying to presume you can put all of these feet into one shoe will simply not work,” McShane explained.

“Having the same set of rules apply to everybody will blow some economies apart totally while others will be unscathed and I wouldn’t be surprised if the ones who remain unscathed are the ones who write the rules,” he added.

‘Nothing happening at this conference’
Professor Dr. William Alexander, emeritus of the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, warned poor nations and their residents that the UN policies could mean more poverty and thus more death.

“My message is specifically for the poor people of Africa. And there is nothing happening at this conference that can help them one little bit but there is the potential that they could be damaged,” Alexander said. (LINK)

“The government and people of Africa will have their attention drawn to reducing climate change instead of reducing poverty,” Alexander added.


http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/925

Ok, so I'm not gonna bother to try and convince you guys otherwise about climate change being a real, likely threat (and I do see it as that) because none of you are going to be swayed in the slightest by someone without the relevant credentials. But lets say I adopt the sceptical view, and admit there is only (say) a 5% chance of man-made emissions being able to cause climate change, don't you think the consequeneces of being wrong is so great that we should at least make some preparations/changes?

Liberals are very concerned about cllimate change, carbon footprints and the impact of human activity on both.
If liberals held their collective breath for a few hours a day, they'd have a significantly positive effect on many things.

Liberals are very concerned about cllimate change, carbon footprints and the impact of human activity on both.
If liberals held their collective breath for a few hours a day, they'd have a significantly positive effect on many things.

Thats about the fifth time you've said something like that since I joined. Instead of recycling your terrible attempts at humour, why don't you answer my question?

The Kyoto treaty, this new farce, and anything related to algore is nothing more nor less than a global redistribution of wealth ponzi scam. Any treaty that allows a nation to pay to pollute is a scam. Hell, anything run by the UN is a huge scam.

Remember it isn't the conservatives or even the global warming skeptics that are quashing any discussion about this matter, it's the scammers themselves.

Remember it isn't the conservatives or even the global warming skeptics that are quashing any discussion about this matter, it's the scammers themselves.

I don't think thats entirely true, from what I've seen sceptics have got a lot of air-time. Just because this article suggests they haven't doesn't mean its true generally.

The Kyoto treaty, this new farce, and anything related to algore is nothing more nor less than a global redistribution of wealth ponzi scam. Any treaty that allows a nation to pay to pollute is a scam. Hell, anything run by the UN is a huge scam.

How is it a scam? Do you think the rest of the world is trying to hold the US back or something? All the IPCC scientists are politically motivated and scientifically incorrect then? My earlier question still hasn't been answered.

The redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with pollution! Buying alGores carbon credits doesn't reduce an ounce of carbon dioxide in the air it just makes him richers and able to fly his big assed jet more and pollute more! No wonder even Putin refuses to sign up with these scams.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:

Liberals are very concerned about cllimate change, carbon footprints and the impact of human activity on both.
If liberals held their collective breath for a few hours a day, they'd have a significantly positive effect on many things.

Thats about the fifth time you've said something like that since I joined. Instead of recycling your terrible attempts at humour, why don't you answer my question?

It's not an attempt at humour.
It is what is necessary for the survival of the planet.

You forgot what I told you a long time ago.
1) I HATE LIBERALS. Every one of you is an oxygen thief. Each and every one.
2) I don't debate liberals. You're not worth my time.

--------------------------

Bilbo Baggins wrote:

Liberals are very concerned about cllimate change, carbon footprints and the impact of human activity on both.
If liberals held their collective breath for a few hours a day, they'd have a significantly positive effect on many things.

Thats about the fifth time you've said something like that since I joined. Instead of recycling your terrible attempts at humour, why don't you answer my question?

you beat me to it

c'mon beer, put some effort into it

iluvfreebeer wrote:

Bilbo Baggins wrote:

Liberals are very concerned about cllimate change, carbon footprints and the impact of human activity on both.
If liberals held their collective breath for a few hours a day, they'd have a significantly positive effect on many things.

Thats about the fifth time you've said something like that since I joined. Instead of recycling your terrible attempts at humour, why don't you answer my question?

It's not an attempt at humour.
It is what is necessary for the survival of the planet.

You forgot what I told you a long time ago.
1) I HATE LIBERALS. Every one of you is an oxygen thief. Each and every one.
2) I don't debate liberals. You're not worth my time.

--------------------------

so either you don't consider me a lib or wrote this because you couldn't be bothered to answer the post seriously... which one is it ?

Buzzy wrote:The redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with pollution! Buying alGores carbon credits doesn't reduce an ounce of carbon dioxide in the air it just makes him richers and able to fly his big assed jet more and pollute more! No wonder even Putin refuses to sign up with these scams.

ok couple points

uno - ecologists have been trying to save the planet for decades, al gore just made the concept sexy, popular etc

dos - i agree with the 2nd point (bilbo?) yeah you can't be 100% sure, but even if there's a small chance of there being a connection, why take the risk ?

tres - what's wrong with alternative energy ? by developing new ways to power our means of heating, transportation etc you're taking power away from the arabian peninsula, russia, columbia - people you don't want to be dependent on.. how is this bad, i mean really ?

4 - planting trees is bad now ? how the fuck is carbon trading bad ? buying chunks of forest to protect them and the biodiversity they hold, putting up wind and solar power, i really don't see how this is bad? now if you're concerned about your taxes, it's important to note here that a lot of the money spent on these things comes from profits of billionaires and their companies - a lot of the time it's philantrophy, so once again, how is this bad?

5 - btw, whenever something big like this happens in the world of science, there's always some party poopers - couple decades ago some doctors said that the link between cigs and cancer, disease, etc was a myth, remember ? rejecting new ideas is part of human ways, questioning them is healthy, but discarding a theory because you don't like it? what's up with that

Popov wrote:

iluvfreebeer wrote:

Bilbo Baggins wrote:

Liberals are very concerned about cllimate change, carbon footprints and the impact of human activity on both.
If liberals held their collective breath for a few hours a day, they'd have a significantly positive effect on many things.

Thats about the fifth time you've said something like that since I joined. Instead of recycling your terrible attempts at humour, why don't you answer my question?

It's not an attempt at humour.
It is what is necessary for the survival of the planet.

You forgot what I told you a long time ago.
1) I HATE LIBERALS. Every one of you is an oxygen thief. Each and every one.
2) I don't debate liberals. You're not worth my time.

--------------------------

so either you don't consider me a lib or wrote this because you couldn't be bothered to answer the post seriously... which one is it ?

I don't consider you a hardcore lib. More a decent guy in need of some experience and belief adjustment:)
My guess is you'll do pretty well for yourself no matter what I ramble on about.

Popov, in the interest of full disclosure, doesn't your father make a living off the the 'global warming' ponzi scheme?

You do know that alGore (and the other ponzi thiefs) aren't planting trees, don't you? They're merely buying up the "rights" to trees already being grown by lumber companies. Those trees were growing anyway, the ponzi thief has just found a way to make money off of it. If you would like you can show me some proof that alGore's carbon credit corporation (based in the UK) is planting new trees to offset carbon dioxide.

Personally I love trees, have a bunch of them growing on my property and plant more every year. I also hate pollution in a way that most tree hugger liberal elite couldn't even imagine as they fill landfill after landfill with their trash. I compost everything I can, including kitchen waste and recycle paper, plastics and metal. I put very little waste into landfills and I'm sure my trees take care of the carbon dioxide I breathe or put out with my pickup.