UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

[David S]

A group of over 100 scientists and economists sent the following letter to the Secretary General of the UN regarding climate change:


"Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

December 13, 2007

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, NY
United States of America

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, 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."

Full text at http://www.nrsp.com/articles/07.12.13-open%20letter%20to%20the%20un%20secretary%20general.html

[MODU]

And I agree for the most part.  Humans impact on the overall CO2 count in the air, when compared to naturally producing CO2, is small.  Now, that doesn't mean we should do a much better job of controlling out output and recycling more, but to force quotas on a global level when the Earth is will work against us naturally is a bit silly.  We'd be better to clean our water (so fish and plant life can thrive) and plant more trees than anything else.  Just think of how much CO2 we can trap by leaving one acre completely wooded for every three acres we use, especially when incorporated in and around large cities where the trees are needed the most.  Not only would CO2 levels drop through a natural process, but the shade of the trees would naturally cool the Earths surface, rather than having exposed concrete and asphalt absorbing the excess heat.

[7,052,770]

100 scientists.  Never mind the tens of thousands of scientists who agree that climate change is caused mostly by humans.

[David S]

100 scientists.  Never mind the tens of thousands of scientists who agree that climate change is caused mostly by humans.

Where is the list of those scientists?

[Jens]

Sigh, I wonder whoes payroll these guys are on.

[Ebowed]

"economic growth and wealth generation"?  LOL!

Do these 'scientists' genuinely not believe in global warming, or do the oil corporations they represent fear that their tax cuts are going to be repealed?

Show me a climatologist who doesn't believe in global warming AND doesn't have an economic agenda to promote.  Then maybe you have something.

[David S]

"economic growth and wealth generation"?  LOL!

Do these 'scientists' genuinely not believe in global warming, or do the oil corporations they represent fear that their tax cuts are going to be repealed?

Show me a climatologist who doesn't believe in global warming AND doesn't have an economic agenda to promote.  Then maybe you have something.

Show me the climatologist who believes in anthropogenic global warming who is not getting government funding to "study" the subject. The pro-warming side has a huge financial stake in the warming agenda.

But I'll ask again, where is the list of scientists who support the AGW theory? I hear claims of thousands of scientists who support it or even hundreds of thousands of scientists who support it, but when I ask for the list I don't get it.

[Boris]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can see a list of organizations on here. I'm unsure as to how many or what percentage of scientists actively studying the issue those organizations represent.

But yeah, this is the problem with global warming 'debates' on the Atlas. Few of us are really scientifically informed enough to refute or confirm the findings of either side, so the only thing we can do is attempt to undermine each sides' respective credibility.

Although, based upon a cursory analysis, it seems as if the Kyoto Protocol has not been very successful in achieving its objective. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the United Kingdom and Sweden(?) were the only two nations that were on track to meet their treaty obligations. This leads me to believe that alternative means should be utilized in order to cap or reduce worldwide greenhouse emissions. Granted, this is all operating under the assumption that  IPCC report on climate change is scientifically accurate.

[Smash255]

"economic growth and wealth generation"?  LOL!

Do these 'scientists' genuinely not believe in global warming, or do the oil corporations they represent fear that their tax cuts are going to be repealed?

Show me a climatologist who doesn't believe in global warming AND doesn't have an economic agenda to promote.  Then maybe you have something.

Show me the climatologist who believes in anthropogenic global warming who is not getting government funding to "study" the subject. The pro-warming side has a huge financial stake in the warming agenda.

But I'll ask again, where is the list of scientists who support the AGW theory? I hear claims of thousands of scientists who support it or even hundreds of thousands of scientists who support it, but when I ask for the list I don't get it.

Ahh yes, so the fact that most scientists support it is just made up.  Boris's list is a start.  Fact of the matter is the so called deniers pretty much all have economic ties mostly connected to the oil and energy industries.  Hmm, I wonder why they would try to influence the Global Warming debate.  They have much more at stake in this than anyone on the Global Warming side does who suggests its a problem.