Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Global Warming - A 3000 Expert Hoax?
The U.N. is not my favorite organization.
They are bureaucrats, supervised by bureaucrats, overseen by bureaucrats, and audited by bureaucrats.
Did I mention that the U.N. is not my favorite organization?...
They are bureaucrats, supervised by bureaucrats, overseen by bureaucrats, and audited by bureaucrats.
Did I mention that the U.N. is not my favorite organization?...
Tom Harris reports this in the Canadian Free Press:
"In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, 'Understanding and Attributing Climate Change'. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.
Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article - Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr. Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the 'Greenhouse gas forcing …' statement above, Professor McKitrick explained “A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed.”"
Comments:
<< Home
Thanks for posting a link to our piece on the IPCC numbers hoax.
For more on what we are doing, please http://www.nrsp.com/news.html.
Sincerely,
Tom Harris
NRSP.com
Canada
For more on what we are doing, please http://www.nrsp.com/news.html.
Sincerely,
Tom Harris
NRSP.com
Canada
# posted by 
: Thu Jan 03, 12:06:00 AM EST
: Thu Jan 03, 12:06:00 AM EST
Thank you for your comment.
And I thank you for your efforts to expose the misrepresentations on this issue.
I will certainly visit your website regularly.
And I thank you for your efforts to expose the misrepresentations on this issue.
I will certainly visit your website regularly.
http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=73474&start=15
"I completely agree with fourhorses that the ultimate aim is to create a situation where the CPC can say assertively, "The science no longer supports the assumptions of the Kyoto Accord."
However, politically this cannot be done overnight without the Conservatives taking what they consider to be an unacceptable hit (do people think they would really lose votes with this statement (from Canadians who would otherwise vote for them, that is?).
So, the solution put on this site a little while ago by Tina is one I would support as well - namely, they don't take sides at all and admit they don't know and so are holding unbiased, public hearings in which scientists from both sides are invited to testify. The resulting chaos, with claims all over the map, will do enough to thoroughly confuse everyone (which is appropriate, actually, since the science is so immature and, frankly, confusing) and take the wind out of the sails of the "we are causing a climate disaster and must stop it" camp entirely, and the CPC can quietly turn to important issues without really having had to say much at all.
What's wrong with this approach?
Sincerely,
Tom Harris, Executive Director, Natural Resources Stewardship Project
Web: www.nrsp.com
http://creekside1.blogspot.com/2007/03/tom-harris-busted.html
Post a Comment
"I completely agree with fourhorses that the ultimate aim is to create a situation where the CPC can say assertively, "The science no longer supports the assumptions of the Kyoto Accord."
However, politically this cannot be done overnight without the Conservatives taking what they consider to be an unacceptable hit (do people think they would really lose votes with this statement (from Canadians who would otherwise vote for them, that is?).
So, the solution put on this site a little while ago by Tina is one I would support as well - namely, they don't take sides at all and admit they don't know and so are holding unbiased, public hearings in which scientists from both sides are invited to testify. The resulting chaos, with claims all over the map, will do enough to thoroughly confuse everyone (which is appropriate, actually, since the science is so immature and, frankly, confusing) and take the wind out of the sails of the "we are causing a climate disaster and must stop it" camp entirely, and the CPC can quietly turn to important issues without really having had to say much at all.
What's wrong with this approach?
Sincerely,
Tom Harris, Executive Director, Natural Resources Stewardship Project
Web: www.nrsp.com
http://creekside1.blogspot.com/2007/03/tom-harris-busted.html
<< Home
