Climate Change - What if you held a conference, and no (real) scientists came?

And with this little tidbit falls one of the stanchions on the 'Non-Believers' tally sheet of evidence. Long have they stated that the 'Believers' have paid or otherwise compensated scientists to lend credence to their cause. You only have to have met a scientist or two to understand the chances of so many of them participating in such a scheme is none to zilch.



PeakOil.com: "The Heartland Institute must have realized that this is not what drives the kind of people they are trying to attract as speakers: they are offering $1,000 to those willing to give a talk. This reminds us of the American Enterprise Institute last year offering a honorarium of $10,000 for articles by scientists disputing anthropogenic climate change.

So this appear to be the current market prices for calling global warming into question: $1000 for a lecture and $10,000 for a written paper." (click on the headline to view the full article)

It Bears Repeating

People against efforts to improve our environment have long perplexed me. It's not that I don't understand that some people are more concerned with personal gain, I think it may be that I don't understand how a person could put a price on their own and their families lives. Have they convinced themselves that they breath somehow cleaner air? That their food is grown in magically pure soil? Are their cows of a level they can move away from the grass accidentally sprayed with this or that toxin by a stray strong wind?

I've come to understand, if not accept, that it all comes down to money. I still don't get it.
If your town's waterfront (usually the highest income producing area in town if there is one) floods, even by a few inches, that is economic disaster. No supplies, no jobs, no taxes and no revenues.
If your town's farmlands are struck by drought, economic disaster. No food, no jobs, no taxes and no revenues.
If your town is struck by heat/cold wave and aging power grids fail.....
Now realize this is happening around the world...

Now no one cares about the newest car model, or fashion lines or football scores or....
No one is spending any money on anything except food shelter and protection...

There is money to be made in this endeavor, just like any other thing. Climb on board now, be a pioneer, those guys always make a ton of dough!
And if we are wrong, the worst thing that happens is we have clean air to breath, water to drink and food to eat

Please take 15 minutes to watch the 2 videos below
And then take 5 minutes to forward or post it.






Saturday January 12, 2008 - 01:37am (PST)

Two Voices, One Message on Climate

Video

This year’s Nobel Peace Prize is being conferred for two starkly different ways of communicating about human-caused global warming.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change speaks in the measured voice of peer-reviewed science and government-negotiations. In four reports issued since 1990, it has always focused on the most noncontroversial findings. In 2001, for instance, it concluded, “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”
The other awardee, former Vice President Al Gore, delivers brimstone-laden warnings of an unfolding “planetary emergency.” He has not shied from emphasizing the most emotionally potent, though least certain, consequences of warming, such as its link to hurricane intensity and the likely pace of sea-level rise.

By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: October 13, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/science/13climate.html?ex=1349928000&en=f556a7ed3042384a&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Feb. 6, 2007)

Friday October 12, 2007 - 04:48pm (PDT)

Bush to Skip U.N. Talks on Global Warming

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — Dozens of world leaders are to gather at the United Nations on Monday for a full agenda of talks on how to fight global warming, and President Bush is skipping all the day’s events but the dinner.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/world/24warming.html?ex=1348372800&en=bb85b6229a5d7b6a&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
By STEVEN LEE MYERS
Published: September 24, 2007
The New York Times

Monday September 24, 2007 - 03:15pm (PDT)

People still want to know if Global Warming is real...

The people way up north say its getting warmer is this true?
sorry the same GW debate but still it is still alarming!
Posted question in Yahoo! Answers 9/24/07 by Yowsie

I pulled 4 documents from a general search phrase "average daily temperature England 1910" to include 'North' and avoid unreasonable data methods. I chose the pages used from the first page of results, and those listings showing highest on the page containing most of my search terms in a way that seemed relevant to the question. One of those documents studied and commented on warming only in relation to fluctuations in average daily min's and max's, so was disregarded. These are the result from the 3 remaining pages.

Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (Thats pretty north eh?) The period is 1946–99, a warming episode. Averaged over all stations, the indices of temperature extremes indicate “symmetric” warming of the cold and warm tails of the distributions of daily minimum and maximum temperature in this period. However, “asymmetry” is found for the trends if the period is split into two subperiods. For the 1946–75 subperiod, an episode of slight cooling, the annual number of warm extremes decreases, but the annual number of cold extremes does not increase. This implies a reduction in temperature variability. For the 1976–99 subperiod, an episode of pronounced warming, the annual number of warm extremes increases 2 times faster than expected from the corresponding decrease in the number of cold extremes. This implies an increase in temperature variability, which is mainly due to stagnation in the warming of the cold extremes. http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?requ... This page finds the average mean temperature of the city for the period of 54 years (1873-1926) covered by Weather Bureau statistics was 49.8º. A comparison of average mean temperatures for the past 10 years with those of Boston and New York shows New Haven's figure, 50.34º to be only 0.15º higher than that of Boston and 1.88º lower than that of New York. And the mean annual temperatures for the ten years 1916-1925 52.22. http://www.med.yale.edu/newhavenhealth/d... And this one says NY mean temp 1961-90 is 60.7 http://www.met.utah.edu/jhorel/html/wx/c...

So, we've gone (generally) from 49.8 in 1873-1926 to 52.2 in 1916-1925 up to 60.7 in the years 1961-1990.....I could probably go on...



Monday September 24, 2007 - 04:27am (PDT)