On Lateline 3 June 06 - both Tony Jones and Michael Rowland showed the didn't know what the were talking about.
Tony Introduced the segment with: "Independent Senator Steve Fielding says his attendance at a climate change sceptics' conference in the US has given him plenty of food for thought."
Michael Rowland followed up with: "This conference of climate change sceptics has been organised by the conservative Heartland Institute, a group that insists global warming is not a crisis."
If they did just a little research, they would have found that the scientists at the Conference all know that Climate is changing, in fact, they know that climate has always changed.
They also know that the AGW alarmists have not shown any proof to back up their claim of anthropogenic global warming.
WAKE UP JONESY!
Showing posts with label Heartland Institute. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Heartland Institute. Show all posts
Friday, June 5, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Alarmists@Copenhagen vs Sceptics@ New York
From the Energy Tribune:
A good report contrasting the two conferences held last month.
Some Contrasts:
Copenhagen
•The climate alarmist conference in Copenhagen was attended by over 2,000 activists, mostly non-scientists.
• The conference duly warned of even higher sea levels and even higher global temperatures all presaging even greater catastrophes.
• The Copenhagen meeting was not about science, it was about politics and prophecy.
New York
•...some 700 climate “skeptics” many of them scientists...
• This was a wholly different kind of affair. It focused on the science of climate change, the latest scientific data, and climate trends.
The most distressing part of the article said:
As such, in dealing with the gritty reality of climate science, it got almost zero mass media coverage.
What happened to investigative journalism? With the current crop of reporters we would not have heard about Nixon and Deep throat nor Clinton and Levinsky.
A good report contrasting the two conferences held last month.
Some Contrasts:
Copenhagen
•The climate alarmist conference in Copenhagen was attended by over 2,000 activists, mostly non-scientists.
• The conference duly warned of even higher sea levels and even higher global temperatures all presaging even greater catastrophes.
• The Copenhagen meeting was not about science, it was about politics and prophecy.
New York
•...some 700 climate “skeptics” many of them scientists...
• This was a wholly different kind of affair. It focused on the science of climate change, the latest scientific data, and climate trends.
The most distressing part of the article said:
As such, in dealing with the gritty reality of climate science, it got almost zero mass media coverage.
What happened to investigative journalism? With the current crop of reporters we would not have heard about Nixon and Deep throat nor Clinton and Levinsky.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
The Confused Rachel Cohen
Rachel Cohen starts her blog entry "Dear Climate Change Deniers...." and then mentions climate change skeptics like the Heartland Institute.
I'm sure that, if she had attended the ICCC organised by Heartland a month ago, she would have learned that the 700 Climate Scientists at the convention all agree that climate changes through the course of history. She would have been hard pushed to find a solitary climate change denier.
She goes on to say the "evidence for global warming is unequivocal" and cites an UN IPCC report. Is she aware that the Assesment reports issued by the IPCC are prepared but less than 50 scientists? Is she aware that more than 31,000 scientists at petitionproject.org have said that it is all bunkum? Is she aware that the UN's IPCC is a political body, not a scientific body?
The IPCC report mentioned that IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachuari said the science has “moved on”
and he was right. The ice core samples show that rise in CO2 follows warming with a lag of 800+/-200 years.
She mentions that the world had experienced over 1 degree of warming in the last century, and can expect even more in the years to come.
She forgot to mention that the warmest decade, according to NASA's GISS, was the 1930's and that the warmest year in that century was 1934. Also, she exaggerated the warming - the official figure was only 0.6ºC
She goes on to say As people of faith, we have a moral obligation to protect the planet and its most vulnerable inhabitants, who stand to suffer the most from climate change and are already seeing its effects. Seems hard to deny...
Well, what about denying the third world the things that advanced her US, our Australia and the major G20 nations; things like Petrol and Oil and Coal Fired Power.
Or do we let these third world people tear down forests for fuel, have rotting food because of no refrigeration, etc etc. These are the most vulnerable inhabitants, who stand to suffer the most from climate change.
I'm sure that, if she had attended the ICCC organised by Heartland a month ago, she would have learned that the 700 Climate Scientists at the convention all agree that climate changes through the course of history. She would have been hard pushed to find a solitary climate change denier.
She goes on to say the "evidence for global warming is unequivocal" and cites an UN IPCC report. Is she aware that the Assesment reports issued by the IPCC are prepared but less than 50 scientists? Is she aware that more than 31,000 scientists at petitionproject.org have said that it is all bunkum? Is she aware that the UN's IPCC is a political body, not a scientific body?
The IPCC report mentioned that IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachuari said the science has “moved on”
and he was right. The ice core samples show that rise in CO2 follows warming with a lag of 800+/-200 years.
She mentions that the world had experienced over 1 degree of warming in the last century, and can expect even more in the years to come.
She forgot to mention that the warmest decade, according to NASA's GISS, was the 1930's and that the warmest year in that century was 1934. Also, she exaggerated the warming - the official figure was only 0.6ºC
She goes on to say As people of faith, we have a moral obligation to protect the planet and its most vulnerable inhabitants, who stand to suffer the most from climate change and are already seeing its effects. Seems hard to deny...
Well, what about denying the third world the things that advanced her US, our Australia and the major G20 nations; things like Petrol and Oil and Coal Fired Power.
Or do we let these third world people tear down forests for fuel, have rotting food because of no refrigeration, etc etc. These are the most vulnerable inhabitants, who stand to suffer the most from climate change.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Coke to turn off electro kinetic sculpture” during Earth Hour.
In an item on National Post by Peter Foster(one of the good guys):
"Times Square also last year witnessed the success of those who wish to dim the lights on such despised materialism. Coca Cola agreed to flip the switch on its thirty-ton “electro kinetic sculpture” during Earth Hour, that exercise in social and corporate pressure, organized by the World Wildlife Fund, during which people wander around in the dark for the sake of the planet."
I hope they realise that when Mr Obama declares CO2 a dangerous pollutant, they will have to take the fizzzz out of coke!
"The Heartland Institute stresses that “No corporate dollars or sponsorships earmarked for the event were solicited or accepted.” That proviso is necessary to forestall braying NGOs and members of the policy establishment who claim that skeptics are in the pay of Big Oil or Big Coal."
"Times Square also last year witnessed the success of those who wish to dim the lights on such despised materialism. Coca Cola agreed to flip the switch on its thirty-ton “electro kinetic sculpture” during Earth Hour, that exercise in social and corporate pressure, organized by the World Wildlife Fund, during which people wander around in the dark for the sake of the planet."
I hope they realise that when Mr Obama declares CO2 a dangerous pollutant, they will have to take the fizzzz out of coke!
"The Heartland Institute stresses that “No corporate dollars or sponsorships earmarked for the event were solicited or accepted.” That proviso is necessary to forestall braying NGOs and members of the policy establishment who claim that skeptics are in the pay of Big Oil or Big Coal."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)