THE President of the Czech Republic and the current president of the European Union, Vaclav Klaus, will give the keynote address this evening at the opening of the second international Conference on Climate Change – billed as the world’s largest-ever gathering of global warming skeptics.
The President is expected to be blunt when he addresses the 400 strong-audience who have flown in from around the world.
The theme of the conference is “Global warming: was it ever really a crisis?”
President Klaus has remarked that there is no climate crisis, but the consequences of a belief in “the crisis” are indeed frightening.
During the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in January, he said environmentalism and the global warming alarmists are challenging our freedom and “radically constraining the functioning of the markets and market economy all around the world”.
Over the next few days I will be posting some papers from the conference and other information at this main page, as miniposts and also at community home. You can download a pdf of the full program here. For more information and to download podcasts click here.
And for those who can’t wait for this year’s presentations to be uploaded, you can start by listening to the presentations from last year’s conference, the first international Conference on Climate Change, with audio and video from more than 100 speakers here.
**********
President Klaus is the author of ‘Blue Planet in Green Shackles’ available from Amazons.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
[blockquote]
“Global warming: was it ever really a crisis?”
[/blockquote]
We are about 5% of our way into the crises, and people are already wondering if it ever existed? Haven’t they read anything in the literature?
Sure we’ve read the literature.
It is just that the evidence for AGW seems thin and contrived when it isn’t outright fraud or faked and what predictions have been made by those who hypothesise AGW aren’t borne out by observation.
SJT: You wrote, “We are about 5% of our way into the crises…”
I’m curious. Where did the 5% come from?
Bob: I think he meant to write” We are 5% into understanding the climate”
‘Global warming’ has become the grand political narrative of the age, replacing Marxism as a dominant force for controlling liberty and human choices. —
Prof. P. Stott. Manager of Understanding and Attributing Climate Change at the Hadley Centre for Climate Change at the UK Met Office.
Take a look at the articles on my web site entitled…ARTICLES ON CLIMATE CHANGE – THE TRUTH
“They deem him their worst enemy, who tells them the truth”…Plato
“I’m curious. Where did the 5% come from?”
Just a rough guide to where we are compared to how far there is to go. We have centuries to go before the climate stabilises again and the effects of CO2 and the resulting feedbacks have played out.
The point is, claiming that it is already over and never happened is absurd. Hasn’t he read the reports at all from the IPCC? His claim clearly indicates he hasn’t and has no understanding of what he is dealing with.
“And for those who can’t wait for this year’s presentations to be uploaded, you can start by listening to the presentations from last year’s conference”. Reckon I will hang on. But I do think it was good marketing to make last years proceedings available, and it may even be good economics as the chances of anything new is vanishingly small. So sceptics only needs a conference every decade or so, just keep recycling. And Klaus obviously knows how science works : “as Prime Minister, he applied for and was awarded the degree of Professor of Finance from his alma mater”.
The Heartland Institute, a bunch of compulsive liars. LOL
” Speakers
last updated: March 5, 2009
The complete program for the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, including cosponsor information and brief biographies of all speakers, can be downloaded in Adobe’s PDF format here.
More than 70 of the world’s elite scientists, economists and others specializing in climate issues will confront the subject of global warming at the second annual International Conference on Climate Change March 8-10, 2009 in New York City.
They will call attention to new research that contradicts claims that Earth’s moderate warming during the twentieth century primarily was man-made and has reached crisis proportions.
Headliners among the 70-plus presenters will be:
* American astronaut Dr. Jack Schmitt—the last living man to walk on the moon.”
Just taking a snapshot of this for posterity.
http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/speakers.html
According to Wikipedia.
We have all these moon walking astronauts still alive. LOL.
1 Neil Armstrong August 5, 1930 38y 11m 15d Apollo 11 July 21, 1969[3] NASA
2 Buzz Aldrin January 20, 1930 39y 6m 0d Air Force
4 Alan Bean March 15, 1932 37y 8m 4d Navy
6 Edgar Mitchell September 17, 1930 40y 4m 19d Navy
7 David Scott June 6, 1932 39y 1m 25d Apollo 15 July 31 – August 2, 1971 Air Force
9 John W. Young September 24, 1930 41y 6m 28d
10 Charles Duke October 3, 1935 36y 6m 18d Air Force
11 Eugene Cernan March 14, 1934 38y 9m 7d
12 Harrison Schmitt July 3, 1935 37y 5m 8d NASA”
Way to go, Heartland, don’t let the truth stand in the way of a good beat up. I hope their climate science fact checking is a little better.
little will, I try to refrain from personal abuse, but you a nitwit;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Schmitt
“* American astronaut Dr. Jack Schmitt—the last living man to walk on the moon.”
You can see how they got it wrong, can’t you? They didn’t say “last man to walk on the moon” did they? Someone screwed up badly.
The AGW fraud has been going on for the last 20 years. None of the original predictions made 20 years ago have come true, none of the updated predictions have come true. Now that the fakery and fraudulent misrepresentations have been removed from the literature, it does appear to be another in a long line of hoaxes, perpetrated by government to control peoples lives and steal their money.
I sure hope there is video of Klaus, the only cool head in the debate.
The amount of money spent on this hoax to prove a lie, is astounding. I guess from government’s standpoint, it’s as investment, since they stand to reap the taxes in return.
“The amount of money spent on this hoax to prove a lie, is astounding. I guess from government’s standpoint, it’s as investment, since they stand to reap the taxes in return.”
An emissions trading scheme doesn’t involve any taxes.
I’ll bet you, Cohenite, that Heartland changes that web page pretty soon.
SJT:
You are not a scientist then? Tell us when the climate has ever been stable and what “stable” conditions it will return to in centuries. Also tell us what all the feedbacks are and what is the evidence for the magnitude and sign of the feedbacks.
I don’t think anybody said Jack Schmitt was the only person to have walked on the moon who is still alive (just the last person to have walked on the moon). Fact checking, or can’t you read properly? I guess you don’t read the IPCC reports with any better comprehension of what is written. You have truly revealed your lack of credibilty.
Vaclav Klaus is not the president of the EU. He is the ceremonial president of the Czech Republic. The Czech Republic holds a rotating (six-month) presidency of the EU. The government of the Czech Republic, which as in Australia is run by the Prime Minister, does not share his views on AGW, or anything else much either.
meanwhile the Age babbles on about nothing in particular
http://www.theage.com.au/national/climates-11th-hour-20090308-8sg9.html?page=-1
11th hour <rolleyes
Yeah good one little Will; but to say an ETS doesn’t involve any taxes is nonsense; The ATO estimates a direct impost to personal taxes of $7; in addition the cost of the Climate Change Office is $55,524M, the Research Budget apportioned between CSIRO and BoM is 467M for a total of $55991M which is shared between 11.5 M taxpayers at $4,869 each PY or $93 pw which with the ATO $7 pw comes to $100 pw. To this must be added the costs to industry; the gov’t’s own white paper estimates the cost of permits to industry in the first 2 years of the ETS at $23.6 billion; the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering estimates the cost of restricting emissions to 8% above 2000 levels at $65billion; and so on. Anyone who says the ETS will not cost has lost touch with reality.
Cheer up all, remember we’re saved……
http://www.smh.com.au/cartoons/
Remember.
“I don’t think anybody said Jack Schmitt was the only person to have walked on the moon who is still alive (just the last person to have walked on the moon). Fact checking, or can’t you read properly? I guess you don’t read the IPCC reports with any better comprehension of what is written. You have truly revealed your lack of credibilty.”
If you can decipher what Heartland means by “Last living man to walk on the moon”, please let me know exactly what they mean. I don’t who who the last dead man to walk on the moon was, either.
Little will; who cares?
SJT “We have centuries to go before the climate stabilises again and the effects of CO2 and the resulting feedbacks have played out”.
According to your reasoning, you should be at -10%, and that’s just to get back to the point where it starts warming again.
Harrison Schmitt is still alive and he was the last man to get out of his spaceship and set foot on the moon.
Maybe the “living” bit is slightly redundant but I guess dead men don’t address conferences.
Cleared up for you SJT?
Maybe SJT really is a computer program? Or a nine year old?
IIRC someone here claimed SJT worked for , sorry, is employed by, the Australian Greenhouse Office. Nice to see the bloodsucking parasites protecting their food source.
SJT “We have all these moon walking astronauts still alive. LOL”.
I’m wondering if you are aware of your pettiness. Your modus operandi seems to be one of cherry-picking trivia from arguments and giggling hysterically over contradictions they may present. Schmitt was the second last man to walk on the Moon, Eugene Cernan being the last. If Cernan is dead, the statement about Schmitt being the last living man to walk on the Moon is true. If Cernan is alive, they were wrong by one.
In either case, what’s the big deal? Are you seriously trying to discredit this conference on the basis of such trivia?
cohenite…there seems to be a controversy about whether Schmitt or Cernan were the last on the Moon. Wikipedia does more sometimes to muddle the facts than clarify them. Schmitt was apparently the pilot of the lunar module and Cernan was the commander. Either way, as I pointed out to the tittering SJT, if Cernan was last, and is alive, the statement is out by one. If he’s dead, the statement is correct.
“I’m wondering if you are aware of your pettiness. Your modus operandi seems to be one of cherry-picking trivia from arguments and giggling hysterically over contradictions they may present. Schmitt was the second last man to walk on the Moon, Eugene Cernan being the last. If Cernan is dead, the statement about Schmitt being the last living man to walk on the Moon is true. If Cernan is alive, they were wrong by one.”
My pettiness has a point. The Heartland has to “puff” speakers, otherwise it would amount to about a few scientists who actively research the science, and all the rest of the speakers are just padding, offering us no more insight than an inexpert opinion. This piece of ‘puffery’ just went too far, and entered the realms of the absurd.
“little will, I try to refrain from personal abuse, but you a nitwit;”
Really, I would have thought that the quote demonstrated an appalling grasp of English. You approve of this level of sloppiness? No wonder you’re a denialist.
“The AGW fraud has been going on for the last 20 years.”
Do all the attendees to the conference get free tin foil hats? Them aliens will take you mind you know. Not borrow, not rent, not lease, TAKE it tells you!
“President Klaus is the author of ‘Blue Planet in Green Shackles’ available from Amazons. ”
That woulds be these Amazons I suppose “a nation of all-female warriors in Classical and Greek mythology”
So the only people who’ll sell me Klaus’ book are mythological female warriors, can I still buy online?
Patrick B, I do apologise for my oversight; how about this:
Patrick B, you are a nitwit. Better?
SJT “…The Heartland has to “puff” speakers, otherwise it would amount to about a few scientists who actively research the science, and all the rest of the speakers are just padding…”
Schmitt is just padding, is he? The guy has a Ph.D in geology and he has piloted a vehicle from a mother ship orbiting the Moon onto the surface then walked on it. What has Michael Mann, another geologist done, other than making a fool of himself over losing the MWP and LIA, then stacking meaningless data to claim Antarctica actually has warmed? How many geologists have done field work on the Moon?
In Lindzen, Spencer and Singer, that conference has more talent and experience than all the IPCC scientists put together. The difference between that trio and the IPCC mob is their research based on direct observation. How many of the IPCC mob are modelers, who are nothing more than mathematicians and computer programmers?
Is Syan Akasofu more filling? This is the astronomer who rewrote the book on solar plasma and its interaction with the Earth’s magnetic field. Nir Shaviv is another top astrophysicist. Patrick Michaels has single-handedly opposed James Hansen, another astrophysicist, since the 1980’s and his warming/climate predictions have been right while Hansen’s have been well off the mark. Of course, Michaels is a real climate scientist, with a degree in the field.
They also have McIntyre and McKitrick, who exposed Mann, the IPCC and NASA. There’s Willie Soon, an astrophysicist, studying solar variations on climate, and David Douglass, with a Ph.D. in physics from MIT. David Legates is the Delaware state climatologist.
Dr. Tim Patterson, a geologist, is Canada’s scientific entry. Craig Loehle, of course, is the guy who rediscovered the MWP and LIA through a little better form of proxy study than the abortion offered by Michael Mann. Craig Idso (speaker), along with Sherwood Idso are experts on CO2. Fred Goldberg is an expert on polar regions.
If an AGW mob was having a convention, and Al Gore was invited to speak, what would you call that? Where’s his skill in the field? Oh, I see, Gore would be acceptable. OK, how about Benny Peiser and Frank Clemente for this conference then? Peiser is not a scientist per se but he’s doing good work exposing the AGW fraud. J. Scott Armstrong, another non-scientist, is an expert on forecasting as is Kesten Green. Ross McKitrick is an expert in statistics. It appears the IPCC uses poor forecasting methodology and non-scientists like Armstrong, Green and McKitrick are required to check their modus operandi.
McKitrick even teamed up with Michaels to do a paper on global warming. If mathematicians like Gavin Schmidt can write papers under the guise of climate science, I don’t see why McKitrick, an economics professor, should be excluded.
Anyway, that lineup looks adequate to me. I forgot Monckton. What conference would be complete without him?
“Schmitt is just padding, is he? The guy has a Ph.D in geology and he has piloted a vehicle from a mother ship orbiting the Moon onto the surface then walked on it. What has Michael Mann, another geologist done, other than making a fool of himself over losing the MWP and LIA, then stacking meaningless data to claim Antarctica actually has warmed? How many geologists have done field work on the Moon?”
If you were going to be having an international conference on Geology and Moon Landings, he would be a good speaker.
Yes I am a nitwit, of course my encyclopedia lists nitwit as “observant, suave man-about-town. A kind of James Bond figure”, it’s right next to the entries on dead moon walkers and book vending Amazons. Thanks mate.
Klaus is cool. He’s just looking after his mates generating a few bucks after all that commie business. Don’t want any repressive inconveniences in the way.
On Vaclan Klaus:
” Václav Klaus remains the object of many criticisms; among the most spread, one can quote his arrogance, his application ostentatiously rigid of certain economic dogmas, his constant and activates tolerance of corruption, his very close links with the many old ones of Stb such as for example Václav Junek (active in France in years 1980 before becoming member of the central committee of the Communist party), as well as a past at the many remote regions. The positions more than ambivalent of Klaus according to 1989 on the Communism, at the same time in the national history and like current party, also make the object of criticism, and this in particular on behalf of the small Czech minority whom constitutes the former dissidents. The president thus published on this subject articles renting the “grey area” of the majority of the population (thus being worth the grateful regard of this one to him) and his bonds with Communism, while condemning the dissidents like Havel for their ” condescendance” ; in another article, Václav Klaus declares “not Communist” but not anticommunist, qualifier which it rejects like ” easy and superficiel”. That will not prevent it, each time that is useful for him, from denouncing the membership passed to the Czechoslovakian Communist party of some of these political adversaries, like Pavel Telička. ”
Quote from Klaus: ” I don’t know any dirty money”.
The Communist Party supported Klaus as well in the elections in 2003.
SJT,
Climatology is a derived field of study. It can use skills in meteorology, geology, astrophysics, oceanography, mathematics and even computer programming. I’m sure I’ve left out many other fields.
So anyone who has some skills in the relevant fields who has looked at the climate change issue is probably worth listening to.
Hansen is an astrophysicist, Gavin Schmidt a mathematician. What makes their views more worth listening to? That they are getting paid?
Harrison Schmitt is a high achiever in a related field who has looked at what is going one and come to his own conclusions.
At least the organisers of this conference aren’t hyping the end of the world as we know it, unlike the people who organise pro AGW conferences. The latter may be wrong about AGW being the end of the world as we know it but they are intent on taking political action to ensure it in another way.
Schmitt et al are publishing and researching climate and climate change. Schmitt is no doubt a very clever person and high achiever. That doesn’t make him qualified to speak out on climate change any more than I am.
Five hundred percentage points additional taxation after the green-left-labor financial flood already?
You can find all the proceedings here
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/proceedings.html
some of them have provided their powerpoint but only a few – otherwise you just have a fixed camera on the speaker as he talks about a series of slides that you don’t see.
why is a major event like this covered by a group of amateurs with bad sound and shakey camera podiums?
“why is a major event like this covered by a group of amateurs with bad sound and shakey camera podiums?”
Because it’s not a major event?
It’s OK, I found a major event.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/climates-11th-hour-20090308-8sg9.html
Unlike the Heartland, which has about two or three climate scientists, and the rest is filler, this one has more than 2,000 climate scientists.
Jennifer must have missed this one somehow.
1) ” Multidisciplinary research from the International Polar Year (IPY) 2007-2008 provides new evidence of the widespread effects of global warming in the polar regions. Snow and ice are declining in both polar regions, affecting human livelihoods as well as local plant and animal life in the Arctic, as well as global ocean and atmospheric circulation and sea level. These are but a few findings reported in “State of Polar Research”, released today by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the International Council for Science (ICSU).
In addition to lending insight into climate change, IPY has aided our understanding of pollutant transport, species’ evolution, and storm formation, among many other areas.
Please visit this site for more information about IPY, including the “State of Polar Research” report.”
Multidisciplinary research from the International Polar Year (IPY) 2007-2008 provides new evidence of the widespread effects of global warming in the polar regions. Snow and ice are declining in both polar regions, affecting human livelihoods as well as local plant and animal life in the Arctic, as well as global ocean and atmospheric circulation and sea level. These are but a few findings reported in “State of Polar Research”, released today by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the International Council for Science (ICSU).
In addition to lending insight into climate change, IPY has aided our understanding of pollutant transport, species’ evolution, and storm formation, among many other areas.
Please visit this site for more information about IPY, including the “State of Polar Research” report.
Multidisciplinary research from the International Polar Year (IPY) 2007-2008 provides new evidence of the widespread effects of global warming in the polar regions. Snow and ice are declining in both polar regions, affecting human livelihoods as well as local plant and animal life in the Arctic, as well as global ocean and atmospheric circulation and sea level. These are but a few findings reported in “State of Polar Research”, released today by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the International Council for Science (ICSU).
In addition to lending insight into climate change, IPY has aided our understanding of pollutant transport, species’ evolution, and storm formation, among many other areas.
Please visit this site for more information about IPY, including the “State of Polar Research” report.
http://npweb.npolar.no/english/subjects/1235478835.73
2) “Climate Change a Threat to Polar Bears – Norway to Host International Meeting Under the Polar Bear Agreement
Norway invites the Contracting Parties to the 1973 Polar Bear Agreement, Denmark/Greenland, Russia, USA and Canada, to a meeting of the parties in Tromsø spring 2009. The purpose of the meeting will be to enhance circumpolar cooperation on management of polar bear populations and to coordinate and establish more efficient conservation measures.
– The rapid warming of the Arctic and the reduction in the extent of sea ice is a serious threat to polar bears. Climate change also makes the polar bear more vulnerable to other threats such as hazardous chemicals, hunting, disturbances and encroachment upon their natural habitat. Many polar bear populations are shared between neighbouring countries, and polar bears migrate across national borders. This means that activities in one area may affect polar bears in other countries. Climate change and increased industrial activity in many parts of the Arctic therefore requires reinforced international cooperation on the management of polar bears, says minister of the Environment and International Development Erik Solheim.
Around 1970 widespread hunting had reduced polar bear populations in many parts of the Arctic, including Svalbard. The polar bear Range States Norway, Denmark/Greenland, Russia, USA and Canada entered into an agreement in 1973 to protect polar bears and their habitat. As a result hunting was reduced and the populations recovered.
– Although the threats have changed, the 1973 Agreement continues to be a suitable framework for international cooperation on the management of polar bear populations , Solheim points out.
The five Contracting Parties met last time in Oslo 1981 and decided then that the agreement would be valid indefinitely. Later the focus has been on cooperation on research through the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, and this has contributed to important and valuable knowledge about polar bears. We wish to strengthen this cooperation. On Svalbard the hunting of polar bear has been banned since 1972. The key polar bear habitats on Svalbard are inside the extensive protected areas established in 1973, which in recent years have been considerably expanded.
– Climate change presents a far more serious threat to polar bears than we previously thought. This necessitates regular government meetings under the 1973 Polar Bear Agreement, in order to follow the development more closely and cooperate more efficiently on measures. Norway will therefore invite the other polar bear Range States to a meeting of the parties to the Polar Bear Agreement in Tromsø during spring 2009. I envisage that such meetings will be arranged every second year from now on, Solheim says. This is in accordance with the recommendations from an informal meeting between the five polar bear Range States in USA in June this year.
– Such revitalization of the Polar Bear Agreement will in our view contribute to a better coordination of research and management between the polar bear Range States. A follow up of the Polar Bear Agreement will also contribute to increased focus on the consequences of climate change, and could provide important input to other international processes related to climate, hazardous chemicals and habitat protection in the Arctic. Not least, such initiative will be important for the cooperation under the Arctic Council, where climate change, hazardous chemicals and protection of biological diversity in the Arctic are important issues, and where Norway at present holds the chairmanship, Solheim underlines.
– I will ask the Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management and The Norwegian Polar Institute to prepare the meeting of the parties in Tromsø spring 2009, the minister of the environment and international development concludes. ”
http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/md/press-centre/Press-releases/2007/Climate-Change-a-Threat-to-Polar-Bears–.html?id=492880
3) ” Polar bear meeting
Norway invites the Contracting Parties to the 1973 polar bear Agreement to a meeting of the parties in Tromsø 17 – 19 March 2009.
Around 1970 widespread hunting had reduced polar bear populations in many parts of the Arctic. The polar bear Range States, Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Norway, Russia and USA, entered into an agreement in 1973 to protect polar bears and their habitat. The five Contracting Parties met last time in Oslo 1981 and decided then that the agreement would be valid indefinitely.
The purpose of the 2009 meeting will be to
provide an update on the conservation status for the polar bears
review implementation of the polar bear Agreement
identify useful polar bear conservation strategies
discuss mechanisms for enhanced implementation of the polar bear Agreement
Latest updates:
6 March 2009: Timed final draft agenda and Social events program are published
1973 Agreement
PBSG ”
http://www.polarbearmeeting.org/content.ap?thisId=500038172
second report from New York from Bob Carter now here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/category/community/
what a load of bollocks!! UN organisation and an NGO pushing fear mongering about the polar regions – same old same old about the 25,000 polar bears. Arctic ice melting and Antarctic warming! – yeah well we know about those ones don’t we.
Oh Oh Oh it’s happening faster than we thought!!
SJT “Unlike the Heartland, which has about two or three climate scientists, and the rest is filler, this one has more than 2,000 climate scientists”.
I highly doubt that. Out of the 4000 reviewers the IPCC uses on it’s reviews, only about 200 are bona fide climate scientists. That is, they have degrees in climate science, unlike a Gavin Schmidt, who has a degree in mathematics. Also, if you’re just including the climate scientists who wil be there as opposed to those who will speak, I’d say the quality of climate scientist at your convention will be much lower. All the top climate scientists are skeptics and none of them are modelers. Your convention could be called a modelers convention, and most of them would be better modeling model airplanes rather than the climate.
I can see them now, with red beanies on their heads, with small propellers attached at the crown, running around with models planes in their hands, imitating the sound of a piper cub and moving the small planes up and down as they turn in circles. Many of them will be wearing shorts with knee socks, and their mothers will be with them in case they get too excited, so they can lay them down for a nap. That will be taking place while featured speakers are trying to figure out how the microphones work, and even after they begin speaking.
“Just a rough guide to where we are compared to how far there is to go. We have centuries to go before the climate stabilises again and the effects of CO2 and the resulting feedbacks have played out.”
Did you just imply that climate is normally stable?
SJT,
Do you have anything better to do than to be a troll?
You post childish sniping ad hominems and such.The empty attack against Vaclav and Schmidt are irrational and not keeping with the topic.
You are already boring.
Your behavior as an AGW believer will hurt your cause.
Ann Novek re your post on polar bears…I could not give a hoot if polar bears go extinct. I would not want to see humans popping them off for so-called sport, but I have no emotional investment in protecting them. If they do go extinct, it has nothing to do with global warming, it’s from over-hunting. Polar bears are particularly nasty animals, going so far as to cannibalize their own species.
We have many species of bears in Canada. Normally, if you are out walking in the wilderness, and you make plenty of noise, they will avoid you. Occasionaly, a rogue bear will track a human and injure/kill him. In the Kootenay National Park, wardens advise staying to the trails, making plenty of noise, and not taking dogs with you. Using that practice, they claim there has been no incidents with bears in the park, even though the park is home to grizzlie bears.
Polar bears are not so friendly. Although it is claimed they will approach you out of curiosity, the rule of thumb is to avoid a polar bear at all costs. With certain bears, even grizzlies, people are adviced to fall down and play dead if a bear charges. Many bears will simply paw you around a bit and leave. With a polar bear, you are advised to run for cover. If they charge, they mean business.
I don’t know why people like you are so protective of them. It’s the same thing as trying to protect sharks and crocodiles. Why? We systematically kill cows, baby cows, sheep, baby sheep, pigs, chickens, turkeys and ducks, none of which harm humans. Yet kill a polar bear or a shark, species dangerous to humans, and environmentalists are all over you. Killer whales, which will separate a baby whale from its mother to kill it, are regarded cute, while halibut are food. We humans are plain weird.
Patrick Michaels had this to say…”… grandstanding political stunts, like calling polar bears an “endangered species” even when they are at near record-high population levels, are based upon projections of rapid and persistent global warming”. That’s the key ‘IF’ warming proceeds rapidly to an unusually high degree, polar bears and other species ‘might’ be affected. The bears are no more than a pawn in this game for activists.
In his recent books, he points out that polar bear densities in the Arctic cover three main areas that are separated significantly. In one region, the bear population is increasing, in another it remains the same and in the other it is decreasing. Have you any idea how large the Arctic region is? How do people count the number of bears?
Here’s a Q&A session with Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a Canadian Polar Bear biologist:
http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=2571
Here’s one Q&A of interest:
FC: To conclude, are you, as one of the world’s most prominent polar bear scientist, worried about the future of the polar bear?
MT: Yes. I’m quite worried about the future of the polar bear but not because I believe anthropogenic carbon dioxide is going to cause uni-directional climate change. I’m worried because the last ten years have seen a warming trend in the Arctic that has already impacted a couple of populations, and I don’t think we really understand the root cause for that warming yet. I’m really worried that by insisting that all populations are being affected at the present time, when they’re not, that researchers are alienating our strongest allies in conservation … which are Inuit that have harvest rights to polar bears. So we’re hurting ourselves when we really need their help and we may be missing something that’s going to become really important in the future. It’s just not productive.
Here’s a good one. The Canadian government held a ‘polar bear roundtable’ to discuss the future of polar bears. Taylor was not invited. Although the leaders of the present minority government in Canada are not supportive of global warming theory in general, there are still fossils in Environment Canada who are eco-freaks. I’m sure Taylor was not invited due to his skeptical global warming stance.
Gordon,
That’s the whole problem, the bureacracies are weighted with eco-freaks and fellow travellers. It’s been ongoing since early last century and recounted at http://www.keynesatharvard.org .
While the Fabians were dominant in the late and early 20th century, they have dropped from the radar but, every so often a Freudian slip occurs, and one realises they are back with a vengeance in the environmentalist movement.
AGS is state sponsored science vs. us, the hoi-polloi
Wow , Gordon divides animals in ” good” and ” bad” ! The last time I heard it was from a grandpa born in the 17th century.
Is the asylum consious that the therapyroom/ internet room has access to the outside world??? Often they don’t like that the schizophrenics have access to the outside world because when they recover they have made such fools of themselves in their psychotic phase.
Wow 2. This blog calls itself an environmental blog. Audenience with people that want to build powerplants in Serengetti and dividing animals in evils and bads!!!! WOW!
Gordon I do hope you are not paranoid but Dr Taylor is a group member ( together with Stirling) in in the IUCN Canadian Polar Bear Specialist Group)
Louis…thanks for link. I had heard of the Fabians but had no idea who they were, nor did I care much about finding out. Unfortunately, any movement seems to attract fringe intellectuals, who latch on, much like a pilot fish to a shark.
I was not overly impressed by the article by Ilana Mercer. For one, I am highly suspicious of female journalists who call themselves Ilana, or worse, were named that by doting parents. I have no idea who Keynes was, but calling him a ‘commie’ struck me as emanating from the Yank paranoia about communists. Her account of British socialism also struck me as being rather paranoid. Obviously, Ilana was raised to revile socialists and communists.
You really have to live up here to appreciate my sarcasm. I got in a debate (friendly argument) with a young woman one night who despised unemployment insurance. I asked her what she’d do in the event of a layoff, which she could never imagine happening. I finally got her to imagine the circumstances but that did not move her. She claimed she’d have no problem surviving. That raised my curiosity, getting me to probe farther. After about an hour of bantering, she finally revealed that she lived at home. I asked how much she paid for rent. She was horrified, claiming her father would never make her pay rent. That’s how Ilana came across to me: a pampered child with no idea how the real world works.
Here in Canada, we have a socialist party called the NDP (New Democratic Party). They no longer call themselves socialists, they are now social democrats. To show you how socialist Canada is as a nation, we’ve had NDP governments in 4 of our 10 Canadian provinces, and they are a regular event in Saskatchewan. That’s the province of Tommy Douglas, where he was premier for many years.
Tommy was a reverand and a damn fine human being. He was also a great orator, of the fire and brimstone variety. When Tommy ran the NDP, they were a peoples’ party, a no-nonsense grassroots affair. Today, they have been infiltrated by ideologists and special interest groups representing environmentalists, homosexuals and womens’ rights groups. Some idealists have recently tried to divorce the NDP from the unions, their bread and butter. To put it in the Scottish vernacular, the NDP have become a load of wankers.
Even in Britain, the Labour party had communist sympathizers like Arthur Scargill. He was a leader in the 1980’s Miner’s Strike that opposed Iron Pants Thatcher. Recently, he helped form the Scottish Labour Party. I have no idea where these people come from and how they could support communism with its grotesque Stalinesque background.
The point I’m trying to make is that movements like socialism, that erupt from legitimate concerns with regard to poor treatment of workers, attract idealists like Scargill. I would venture to say that most socialists are simple people who want to do a decent days work and be treated with respect and decent renumeration. In general, they want to be left alone to get on with their lives. As often as not, they are affected by idealists from the left and the right who have nothing better to do than bring political dogma into reality. Some people are just not happy unless they are forcing something unwanted down another person’s throat.
Having worked with many socialists in my life, I have found them to be decent people with hearts. They have no particular beef to pick with capitalists, in fact, many of them wish the wealthy well and some are wealthy themselves. Why the wealthy and right-wingers find them so objectionable is beyond me. There is a definite paranoia in their hatred. In other words, they are just hating out of an irrational fear, like Ilana.
As I have told you, I don’t think bread and butter socialists are the eco-freaks. I think it is the Yuppie idealists, the intellectuals, and their advocates. Some of those might be socialists but I’d guess they come from any political denomination, as is evidenced by Schwarzeneggar and our right-wing government here in BC. They strike me as being weirdos who have been pampered in life and educated in elitist thought. Or, the offspring of the same. The average working class person neither has the interest nor the time to indulge in such tom-foolery.
I know people who are concerned about the environment much as Michael Crichton was concerned. Although Crichton could separate the bogus science from concerns for the environment, many people can’t. They opt for the entire bundle, and the shame there is that activists prey on such people. The average socialist has no interest in preying on people, rather they’re interest is in not being preyed on. Those who would convert people seem to be idealists with that penchant.
Hopefully you are not confusing the Rudd government with socialists. They strike be as being the same kind of wankers as our NDP.
Ann Novek “Wow , Gordon divides animals in ” good” and ” bad” ! The last time I heard it was from a grandpa born in the 17th century”.
Ann…I was actually thinking about that the other night while watching a BBC documentary on the ocean. I have always listed dolphins in the ‘good guy’ category and still do. Watching the movie, I became rather perturbed watching them eat fish. Being a vegetarian, who does not eat fish, unless it’s with chips and is halibut (i.e. I’m a great hypocrite), I was uncomfortably reminded that dolphins have no choice.
In your other reply, you hoped that I was not paranoid. The only time I have been truly paranoid was on an ill-advised trip on purple microdot (double hit of LSD) in the 1970’s. I experienced the same paranoia on Orange Sunshine and Berkley acid (tastes like a lifesaver and dissolves in the mouth), just to verify my findings. Other than a few trips like that I much prefered beer. I’ll tell you this: until you have experienced real paranoia, you have no idea what it is.
Paranoia is an irrational fear, in other words, there’s no basis for the fear, it is imagined. There is nothing imagined in the fear of bears, and if you don’t have it, you will be in the doo-doo that will soon be present if such an encounter takes place. Hopefully, if you meet a polar bear, you wont try to pet him, or feed him. I’m just not one of those armchair observers in life who think polar bears are cute and cuddly. Maybe the babies are, but the full-grown bears are a damned menace in and around human habitats. I have no time for them.
I did not get your point about Dr. Taylor. He is claiming polar bears are not in danger and that global warming is not caused by anthropogenic gases. Your post seemed to be claiming the opposite.
Gordon,
Until I read that link to Keynes, I hadn’t realised the situation was like that, though I had hints from time to time. Rudd’s government are social democrats, as they like to call themselves but personal experience suggests it’s rhetoric – put crudely they are statists and I should watch my p’s and q’s here since political retribution is possible. These people are career politicians who have engineered a career feeding off the taxpayers for almost perpetuity. We had one Green’s Senator who did her time, and now is on an indexed pension for the rest of her life. You and I? It’s a struggle.
The poor old socialists are idealists, and Oz produced plenty of groups who tried to create utopia in South America last century. As for the present flag wavers, there are indeed Fabians, but they would not admit to so. Active ALP politicians and academics run the society here as a pleasant little debating society.
But I found the url compelling – I read it from start to finish. Really startling was Keynes own admission that he had to become a “bolshevik” in a letter to his mother.
It bears remembering that under a socialist system there is no private property, hence no prices and thus no market possible.
But I go off topic – I came here searching for Bob Carter’s secopnd despatch from NYC 🙂
Gordon:”Your convention could be called a modelers convention, and most of them would be better modeling model airplanes rather than the climate.”
Well the climate models as I understand them aren’t perfect scale replicas by any means, and they’re definitely not working models like remote controlled airplanes that are made to look the part but function differently. The only conclusion I can come to is that the models are cruder still, like the bamboo & matting cargo cult models of airplanes that natives used to build on hillls to make appeals through. The only difference here is that this cult of Gore has been considerably more successful in summoning government cargo with them so far than the church of John Galt ever was.
Louis “It bears remembering that under a socialist system there is no private property, hence no prices and thus no market possible”.
If we can change socialist to communist I will agree. That’s the idea of a communism, which is based on a collective, or commune. The Israeli kibbutz seems to work for those involved, however.
I live in a socialism here in Canada and private property prevails. The only developed public property is in state run co-operatives, but even they have independent councils to run them. People buy into them and their money is refunded when they leave, if their dwelling is well-maintained.
One of the former NDP stalwarts here in Canada, Bob Williams, an ardent socialist, is a millionaire. He developed properties. There is nothing in a modern socialist mandate that targets private property or says people can’t be in business. The focus of a modern socialism is state run programs like pensions, unemployment insurance, medicare, etc. The roads, sewers and other public utilities are all state operated, paid for by taxpayers.
There’s no way you can call that type of government a capitalism. It would be naive to say some of those governments don’t exist to help capitalists, or even to favour them, like our present federal government, but the capitalists have to lobby for those favours. It’s a lot different in the United States where virtually everything is run by private enterprise. That’s what Obama hopes to change and it’s what our present provincial government is trying to emulate.
Louis…it wasn’t the inference that Keynes was a communist that bothered me, it was the article calling him a ‘commie’. Whenever you hear that term used up here it is meant as an insult. I had no time for Stalinist communism, or that of Mao, but I can’t be bothered by closed-minded capitalists mouthing off about anything that doesn’t suit their greed-oriented lifestyle. Many of them would see their Grannies starve to death rather than pay lip service to state welfare systems that help the poor.
mick “The only conclusion I can come to is that the models are cruder still…”
You mean like something from the Wizard of Oz (not to be confused with Penny Wong) where there is a guy behind a curtain rather than the silicon chips we’re used to in a computer? Or worse still, Al Gore behind the curtain, sitting in a pose like ‘The Thinker’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thinker
We have repeated this ad nauseum at the blog but the Canadian Gov’t seems democratic enough and are sending polar bear scientists to the IUCN Polar Bear Specialists Meetings with opposing views.
Of course I mean Taylor vs Stirling and company. Taylor wants to use Inuit sightings as a proof that PB populations have increased. Stirling says the more sightings are due to decreased ice extent.
I think also Canadians are more opposed to the view that the planet is warming becuase Canada has not warmed as much as Norway.
And btw , what are a socialist guy like you doing on a neocon site?:)))) LOL! Just curious.
This is a neocon site? What a strange world we live in, so given the confusion over the definition of neocons, socialism and capitalism here, and the possibility of badly reasoned replies, I’ll not continue this thread.
Gordon, one small point, Communism is socialism implemented at gun point. Fabianism is socialism by stealth. Social Democracy is socialism by well intentioned goas with unintended results. And fascism is a society with the outward trapping of the market but with tight control by the State.
Leave it for there, since you seem to be having more fun bear-baiting 🙂
Gordon: “You mean like something from the Wizard of Oz (not to be confused with Penny Wong)…”
Actually looking back at what I wrote – I’ve never been good with names – I should have said John Frum, not Galt. I think that is one of the largest well known cargo cults.
Well, I’d settle for the ‘pay no attention to the man behind the curtain’ line in a pinch, there’s a bit of that going on too. But I was thinking more along the lines of the models being more like to a modern day incarnation of primitive representational symbolism through which the owners claim the power to gain access what it represents. Same deal as rain dances & earth mother fertililty statues. Little bit more sophisticated maybe; the marketing is at least.
mick “But I was thinking more along the lines of the models being more like to a modern day incarnation of primitive representational symbolism through which the owners claim the power to gain access what it represents”.
The word ‘mandala’ immediately came to mind but I had to look it up. From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala
comes the following:
“In various spiritual traditions, mandalas may be employed for focusing attention of aspirants and adepts; as a spiritual teaching tool; for establishing a sacred space; and as an aid to meditation and trance induction”
I think you’re onto something here. Also:
“In common use, mandala has become a generic term for any plan, chart or geometric pattern that represents the cosmos metaphysically or symbolically, a microcosm of the Universe from the human perspective”.
Let’s see, the mainframe that runs a large model definitely has a geometric pattern, as does the circuit boards inside, with their rectangular and round parts with the small spider-legged pins, and it’s software definitely represents the cosmos metaphysically or symbolically, because it sure ain’t scientifically. It’s also a microcosm of the of the Universe from the human perspective.
Yeah, I definitely think you’re onto something here. Modelers are spiritualists who believe in their electronic mandelas.
Louis “Gordon, one small point, Communism is socialism implemented at gun point”.
You’re right about the off-topic nature of this, but one last point. There are people who rob banks at gun point because they were driven to it. They are desperate people. You could claim socialism came into being at gun point but it was meant to be non-violent. All they were doing was sitting down and withdrawing their services. They might have gotten a bit sore at people crossing their picket lines, but the Pinkerton’s and pro-government cops took a lot of liberties when it came to violence against the unionists.
The freedoms and benefits all of us enjoy today, both union and non-union, were won through blood and death. There’s no way those freedoms and benefits would have been handed over out of the kindness of some capitalists heart. But the main distinction between socialism and communism comes from Karl Marx himself. He refused outright to name his ideology socialism, because that name had become synonomous with wealthy Germans who gave handouts to the poor. Engels wasn’t so fussy, but he could not move Marx on that name. To Marx, communism was not socialism, and it’s pretty obvious the way socialism has developed that it’s a lot different than communism.
When the Russians adopted the ideology of Marx, they did not do it in the same manner as the unions. The unions did it within a democracy through civil disobedience. Both Russian and Chinese communisms were imposed with not an instant’s thought to democracy. There’s your difference. Socialism has always been democratic and adjusted to the people in a country, in general. If people didn’t like it, they voted it out. Communism has offered no one the right to vote it out of power.
See my reply to Ann.
Ann Novek “I think also Canadians are more opposed to the view that the planet is warming becuase Canada has not warmed as much as Norway. And btw , what are a socialist guy like you doing on a neocon site?:)))) LOL! Just curious.
Ann…I don’t think Canadians in general are opposed to the notion of global warming, they just don’t want more government control in the way of taxes. They rejected the Green Shift plan offered by the Liberal government more because they did not like the messenger. The leader of the Liberals at the time, Stephan Dion, did not instill confidence in us. Also, many Canadians don’t like Al Gore or David Suzuki, our Canadian version of Al Gore.
Besides, why are you complaining about a bit of warming in Norway?
As far as me being a Socialist, you must know something I don’t. I have no idea what I am. I defend socialism because I’m a unionist and socialism came from unionism. Mind you, many unionists today are out and out capitalists, some of them calling their stock-brokers at coffee time or lunch time. In the old days of unionism, some members were communists, but we regarded them more as odd-balls than anything. Most true unionists I know have socialist leanings but would have nothing to do with communism. Besides, most of them are closer to being millionaires (except me) due to a life of good union wages and escalating property prices in Canada.
I’m now in business for myself and I stand up for a person’s right to do that and to make a fair profit. At the same time, I’m a humanist. I cannot subscribe to the notion that a person is an island unto himself with no responsibility to those around him. I would not go so far as the ‘brother’s keeper’ bit but I don’t think there’s any excuse for poverty in a country like Canada. I don’t see any reason why the goods and services a person needs to survive should be in the hands of the private sector either, unless there are significant controls to prevent gouging. There’s no way governments should stand by and watch oil companies artificially drive up the price of fuel. That’s why we have the ‘n’ word (nationalization) to keep them in line.
One of our famous Prime Ministers, Pierre Trudeau, once let it slip that Canadians should not have to pay more than 25% of their gross income for housing. Someone must have muzzled him for he never said it again. I think it would be a very good idea if the basic needs of people, such as shelter, basic foods, healthcare and fuel, were not in the hands of the private sector. I know true capitalists will go apoplectic about such a statement, raging on about price controls ruining the economy. Economies are ruined by greed and stupidity, as we have recently noted.
If intelligent people want to create a civilized society in which everyone is guaranteed a ‘basic’ modicum of comfort, that could easily be established without ruining economies. The fear many people have is that of being used by layabouts and manipulators, if they create a system to help the poor and underprivileged. There are ways to deal with that too, but I think we also have to recognize that many of the people who fit the description of a layabout, are people with underlying emotional problems. Many people simply cannot deal with the bozos on power and ego trips who often run companies. That, and the fact there simply are not enough jobs to go around, create a hostile work environment in which people would rather not work.
In another thread there was talk about people picking fruit rather than going on the dole. I would much rather work than go on the dole, but I’ll be damned if I’ll work for minimum wage for some bozo who rides me and insults me. It’s bad enough putting up with that at top wages in a union job never mind being ridden on a low paying one. In the meantime, there’s no excuse for poverty, even if it means layabouts are going to use the system.
It’s much healthier for a person, both physically and psychologically, to have a regular job, but I can’t say that’s true if going to a job drives a person to anxiety. We are struggling with that in unions, having taken major steps to prevent sexual discrimination on job sites. Even at that, many employers and journeymen feel it is their God-given right to harrass employees and apprentices respectively. That nonsense has got to stop, and until the work place becomes a place that a person can enjoy going to, we are never going to get rid of the layabouts and manipulators.
That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.
Ann Novek…were you asking why a person with socialist leanings is a skeptic? If so, I side with the right-wingers on this one for different reasons. There’s no way I support the oil companies or anything they stands for. My concern is that the AGW theory is wrong and that our politicians will be spending huge sums of many on that bad science. In Canada, some right-wingers are trying to cripple our social programs, like healthcare, and I know this global warming rhetoric gives them the perfect opportunity.
The premier of my province is one of those right wingers. He has imposed the only carbon tax in Canada and he’s talking about more ridiculous concessions to that ‘Devil’s gas”, as he sees it. I don’t want loonies like him getting the power to make those changes.
correction (my post @ March 11th, 2009 at 6:25 pm)…should read ‘huge sums of money’ not ‘huge sums of many’, whatever that might be. Also, ‘anything they stands for’ is something Popeye would say. Out of respect for Popeye, and his friend, Wimpy, I’m leaving it.
As Wimpy would say, “Can you lend me the price of a hamburger today, for which I would gladly repay you Tuesday”?
Gordon: “Modelers are spiritualists who believe in their electronic mandelas.”
It’s true they’re making some mystical appeals to nature just from the glimpses we get of their approximations. But I think the appeal is headed in the other direction mainly – away from nature. True there are some nuts that do want the world to warm so they’ll be right, but the owners are more likely appealing for good old human booty – goods, services & recognitions. Nature is the authority, they are the gatekeepers & mankind shall gather round & provide them the fixings.
mick “Nature is the authority, they are the gatekeepers & mankind shall gather round & provide them the fixings”.
It’s the ideology that bothers me most, and as you say, the more unscrupulous sign on for the free ride. It has occured to me that we get far too carried off with emotion in such matters. I get emotional about poverty, probably because I grew up in it. I can understand a wealthy person not understanding the plight of the poor, or even giving a damn about it. It’s when they go out of their way to deprive the poor of any way of having even the basics in life that I get sore. Money is not even the issue, it’s an overriding hatred of someone getting something for nothing, even if it’s a pittance.
In the same way, the proponents of the AGW theory are not only satisfied with promoting their theories, they are also bent on depriving those who oppose them, of making a living through discrediting them. Some, like Hansen, claim the skeptics should give up their freedom. In the HIV/AIDS debate, a concerted effort has been made to ruin the career of Peter Duesberg, the most visible skeptic, even though the points he makes cannot be refuted. They can’t fire him as a professor because he has tenure, but they have reduced his role to that of teaching undergraduate lab classes. In other words, they have tried to shame him into quitting.
Meanwhile, people are making money hand over fist from pseudo-science. You can’t call modeling a science because models are not verifiable. What is the purpose of them, in that event? Obviously they are vehicle for funding, nothing more. They serve no other purpose than keeping IPCC scientists and their ilk flush with funding and salaries.
SJT “Duesberg is a lone nutter. The research is being done, and the drugs are being made to control AIDS and it’s symptoms. Those drugs work because they were developed on the scientific research that has been done”.
The main problem with your analyses is how far out they are. AIDS cannot be controlled and it has no symptoms. AIDS is a collection of opportunistic infections that show up in the body when its immune response is weak. For example, tuberculosis is listed as an AIDS infection if there is HIV present. If there is not HIV, it is treated as tuberculosis.
Obviously, you’re talking about HIV and calling it AIDS. Once a person contracts one of those opportunistic infections, the game is over. The immune system is too weak to respond and the person dies. HIV, on the other hand, needs no medication. As Duesberg implies, it’s a harmless passenger virus that is a marker of high risk behavior. Stop the high risk stuff and it will clear up. That is, if it’s there at all.
Duesberg needs no apologists. The guy has more citations for his work in microbiology than a dozen other researchers. If Duesberg is a nutter, the crowd in charge are morons. Then again, I should know better than to respond to someone like you who specializes in knee-jerk reactions. Even though I have given you good links to read, you obviously have not taken the time to read them, hence your tired old arguments. You keep spewing the same verbiage on HIV/AIDS, just as you do with the AGW theory.
“Obviously, you’re talking about HIV and calling it AIDS. Once a person contracts one of those opportunistic infections, the game is over. The immune system is too weak to respond and the person dies. HIV, on the other hand, needs no medication. As Duesberg implies, it’s a harmless passenger virus that is a marker of high risk behavior. Stop the high risk stuff and it will clear up. That is, if it’s there at all.”
HIV attacks white blood cells, that is, the body’s immune system. You can even see pictures on the web of them exiting a white blood cell.