crucifyme…good name. The one child policy requirement is another fantasy construct of the Malthusian elite. It’s an even worse fantasy (and fraud) than the global warming hoax. Everyone knows that as soon as an area is reasonable well developed the average birth rate drops to about 1.4 per couple. In other words, it is almost impossible to sustain the population of a developed nation without immigration. The banking elites, however, noticed that if they allowed the third world to industrialize they would lose the ability to exploit their poverty and lack of technology in order to harvest their resources. We’ve seen instances of countries fully industrializing within just a couple or three decades, such as Japan. Arguably, in China there was such overpopulation that the crisis could not be solved by increasing the standard of living. There are really few or no other countries that we couldn’t simply allow (encourage, assist) to modernize and their populations would drop by rocks. Instead of this simple, obvious and once again scientifically irrefutable solution, the oligarchs would have us forced into penury and then robbed of the right of having children. It’s a completely irrational idea (that is, unless you are going after global fascism).

C.Curtis.Dillon thanks for reading the material in the links I posted. Glad you agree with all parts except the wording of the summary to which you assign a mountain of importance and conjecture about motives. The oil companies back the global warming movement, so you’ve got that backwards. It’s just like the health insurance companies which are widely missunderstood to have opposed health care reform when in fact they wrote most of it. Truly, there is no science behind anthropogenic global warming other than the general one that it doesn’t exist.

Some of the arguments used to pull down the pants of the global warming hoax are so simple and elegant that young children can understand their irrefutability. Here’s one: the change in polar ice here on Earth has been similar to that on Mars. Maybe that was our SUV’s? Anyone who believes that global warming is founded on credible science needs to take a personal, in-depth look into the matter. Fraud. Scam. Cover up.

Political correctness amongst the 15,000+ attendees and the
attendant fawning media will ignore the irony of this self-
serving and bloated spectacle.

That political correctness along with economic forces will
prevent discussion on the root cause of stress on the earth’s
oceans, air, forests, rivers, and lakes.

http://pacificgatepost.com/2009/12/not-overheard-in-
copenhagen.html

Sorry ... replace the 27 million tons of CO2 with 27 BILLION tons.

C. Curtis Dillion,
As long as the raw “homogenized” data is not made public and the “scientists” refuse to publish their codes, we will never settle this dispute that should naturally occur within an emerging science!

A prominent Global Warm-monger considered a “climate scientist” is an astrophysicist, knows all about climate change on VENUS….Jim Hansen also a pseudo-political scientists, the worst kind.

If you want a real mud sling. How about your Profit of Believe Science, Al Gore…a BA in Settled Science.

Thosee in glass houses should’nt throw stones

DieDaily:

I reviewed your literature and the climate summary from the petition project.  I’m a scientist and accept, on face value (meaning it seems OK without further research to refute the claims), some of the data provided.  However, there is a fundamental flaw in the “summary” which overshadows any conclusions reached.  The science seems reasonable and considered until we reach the section entitled “Environment and Energy” where the true reason for the summary emerges.  That section is obviously an advertisement and promotion for the energy industry which has, I must point out, a vested interest in destroying any attempts to reduce carbon-based energy systems and their atmospheric impact.  If this were a true “summary” of climate research results, this section would not be included as it has nothing to do with atmospheric science and a whole lot to do with money and influence.

Now, about the science: I’m not in a position to dispute the findings or conclusions of the summary.  There may be some component of the current trends we see which is natural in origin and therefore not caused by our activities.  However, that does not absolve us from addressing the impacts these trends are creating.  Also, if this summary is, as I suspect, sponsored by the energy industry, one has to immediately ask if the conclusions pass the “smell test”.  I point out that many scholarly papers were published by “reputable” scientists in support of tobacco and it beneficial effects.  They too pointed to a long list of references to support their science which, we now know, was fraudulent.  Always question the source of the data and what their motives might be.  And be aware that the Petition Project was started by the principal author of the summary meaning there is a conflict of interest there.

There is always a desire to find support for a position we ourselves hold.  Climate science is a massive undertaking and we are still in the early stages of understanding the system.  Many want to believe what we are seeing is not of our making and therefore we can continue living our lives as if nothing has changed.  But I think we all need to stop believing that one side is good while the other is bad.  Most climate researchers are good people trying to do good science.  There is no conspiracy with them despite the hacked e-mails.  And most climate change deniers are just people who find the whole subject hard to swallow.

We also need to ask ourselves who benefits from this summary.  I looked at this Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine to see who they are.  Three founders standing in front of a steel Butler building (2 have since died so only Robinson remains).  One immediate concern I have is the size of their organization.  6 staff (only a few who seem to actually be resident in Oregon) is not really a high grade research institute.  Also, they refuse to divulge who their “private” supporters are which makes them even more suspect.  A reputable scientist would readily list his supporters.  And SourceWatch does not hold him in high regard despite his promising start as an associate of Linus Pauling.  He is also a supporter of “Intelligent Design” which, in my book, downgrades his academic credentials quite a bit.

All in all, I do not see a great deal of credibility with this organization or its founder.  I would have to look more closely at the references and if he has cherry picked them so only supporting evidence is presented.  I do see that some of his numbers are wrong which is not a good start.  World CO2 emissions are presently 27 million tons/year, not the 7 million he uses for some of his calculations.

Sorry ... you need better than this half-baked summary to refute climate change arguments.

I supported DN for many years now and even transcribed for them from time to time.
I never thought I would say this about the once great Amy Goodman who stood against global elitist trying to enslave the masses…YOU ARE BOUGHT

Let’s keep fingers crossed and hope that some concrete step will be taken by the participating countries to stop global warming.

Enhanced Kre-Alkalyn

Whenever you have no facts to support your claim, and you are in the unfortunate position of not being able to play the race card or seek other suitable cover, then here is what you should do: use the word “denier”. That way you can obfuscate the fact that you don’t have any facts to bring to the table instead. Never mind that it makes you a “reality denier” if you were really yo think about it. But never mind that, the important thing is that you are able to invoke the word “denier” and this may allow you to escape from a factual debate. Some excerpts from the East Anglia leaked emails:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

These 53 emails (which is just a taste) are not disturbing merely because they lay out in gruesome detail how an academic fraud is to be perpetrated and various careers ended, journals suborned, lies propagated, etc. That would be quite terrible, but cooking up science out of nothing is NOT what we are seeing here. Intimately discussed, are the brutal and dishonest tactics that are used on fellow human beings to hide the fact that the opposite of global warming is occurring. “This is how we hide the decrease in temperatures”. The above link is worth a read, but watch out, you will have to stop being a reality denier if you read them. As a programmer, of even more interest is the code and in-line comments which contain the heart of the fraud…bogus modeling on the one hand, and statistical convolutions and data fraud on the other. One comment that is particularly funny can be found here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/

Now these leaked emails were timely, but by no means were they needed to debunk the myth of global warming. When the IPCC claimed that there was scientific consensus, the scientific community went absolutely ballistic (even if the mainstream media and even the usually courageous Amy Goodman blacked it out) and the already massive dissent became overwhelming.

What am I referring to? Why the Oregon Petition, of course, in which brave, honest folks chose to accurately report and embrace the real scientific consensus, which is that global warming is a fraud. This petition, some time back, had accumulated the voluntary and verified signatures of over 30,000 qualified scientists that had serious doubts about the anthropogenic hypothesis and who oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Here’s the link:
http://www.petitionproject.org/

31,486 Scientists including 9,029 PhDs? Wow. That sure is a lot of dissenting scientists. But I’m sure they’re just “Deniers”, right LostHills? I mean it’s possible to declare consensus when a mere 17000 well qualified scientists dissent, right? All you have to do is focus on the 3000 thousand that you have on your side. Oh, but wait, that’s what the IPCC did, isn’t it. Sorry, wrong data there, about a third of those names were not scientist or were scientists who SUED them to have their names removed. I don’t know the current figure but it’s dwindling even faster than global temperatures.

Last of all, here’s a wonderful, fully peer reviewed paper that really, really lays it all out. It references 132 other peer reviewed papers, and is pretty understandable, even for somewhat simplistic people who go about calling people “deniers” while they deny EVERY fact at hand. Link:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Have fun denying all of this LostHills. I’m sure you’re up to it. After all, it’s only reality, and what could be easier to deny than that? Providing you use the word “deniers” a lot, it should be a piece of cake.

Global warming deniers are a peculiar breed of ignoramus that are always good
for comic relief…

I generally love Amy Goodmans reporting, but let`s get a few facts straight.

1. There is no valid science that suggests that there is ANY global warming.

2. If there were, then CO2 would play an incredibly minor role, and then only 0.3% of that incredibly tiny role would be human-related.

By hitching its wagon to a scientific fraud the very valid, very urgent envronmental issues that really do exist will wind up lumped in with the global warming fraud, and this is just tragic. I guess Amy has not heard of the climate-gate emails and has not noticed that for every scientist claiming that global warming exists there are ten that are either somewhat skeptical of this claim or outright opposed to it. I love your work, Amy, but you really really boned this one.

Copenhagen is a huge greenwash. Nothing will happen here that will slow global
warming. The only thing worth paying any attention to are the protestors. They’re
the only ones with anything of validity to say.

I am listening daily to DemocracyNow, live show from inside the Bella Center.  Amy Goodman says it’s the only daily news show, live, inside the Center.  It’s available, free, at the website, and video/transcript a little bit later.  http://www.democracynow.org