Brett: Thanks for posting this thread!

It will be interesting to see the reactions of all in this forum. I'm especially interested to see the serious comments (other than the attack, discredit and insult format from the alarmists.

Some more wierd solutions to "help" save us:

"Baby tax needed to save planet, claims expert"

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22896334-2,00.html

Wow! That took my breath away! ( hummmmm less CO2 sounds good!)

It's hard to believe everyone on the list is being paid off by the oil industry.

I saw the letter yesterday. I was going to post it, but I see you beat me to it, Brett! I am sure that old Ban Ki and his band of elitest cronies will certainly pu pu it and toss it in the trash. Business as usual at the UN, in Bali, and in the utopian (upside down) world of the political left.

Save the planet from hot air. Muzzle Ban Ki-Moon!!!

I think this should be sent to more media outlets, where someone will notice. How about Washington Post, NY Times and the BBC??

Congratulations, Brett, for giving these folks the only exposure they're likely to get outside of the NP and the denialist blogosphere. I'm sure they greatly appreciated it after they were unable to get any traction at all at the Bali conference. It's interesting that they didn't even try to hold a press conference outside of the official venue. I suspect it's because none of the reporters would have been willing to go even slightly out of their way to cover it.

I see that other than the Arctic sea ice news you managed to miss what happened in connection with the AGU fall meeting. FYI there were a lot of important climate science results, including this.

""The IPCC's Summaries for Policy Makers are the most commonly read IPCC reports among politicians and non-scientists""

If you go to the IPCC's home page, they explain exactly who they are

"The IPCC's role is to assess
literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding
of the risk of human-induced climate change."

Their role is to search scientific literature, and only publish things that are relevant to the

risk of human-induced climate change.

Not natural, volcano, sun, orbits, etc.
and not things that show no risk

.

I have been sayint athat all along. Sadly Al gore and the IPCC belives thsoe who think that are crazy.

A very impressive group!

How can something that goes against the AGW mantra so much possibly be ignored by the media? They will have their blinders on as usual and probably not mention this at all except for Fox which has the scam figured out already and has for quite some time.
These scientist's aren't just guessing here, this is their belief's based on what they know.

Oops, almost forgot: It turns out that there was another Bali letter, this one signed by a couple hundred actual climate scientists. The press release:

WORLD'S TOP CLIMATE SCIENTISTS CALL FOR URGENT,
TOUGH GREENHOUSE GAS LIMITS

More than 200 leading climate scientists have today warned the United Nations Climate Conference of the need to act immediately to cut greenhouse gas emissions, with a window of only 10-15 years for global emissions to peak and decline, and a goal of at least a 50% reduction by 2050.

The scientists warn that if immediate action is not taken, many millions of people will be at risk from extreme events such as heat waves, drought, floods and storms, with coasts and cities threatened by rising sea levels, and many ecosystems, plants and animal species in serious danger of extinction.

The researchers, who include many of the world?s most acclaimed climate scientists, have issued the "Bali Climate Declaration by Scientists" in which they call on government negotiators from the 180 nations represented at the meeting to recognize the urgency of taking action now.

They say the world may have as little as 10 years to start reversing the global rise in emissions.

The Bali Declaration emphasises the current scientific consensus that long-term greenhouse gas concentrations need to be stabilised at a level well below 450ppm CO2e (450 parts per million measured in carbon dioxide equivalent).

Building on the urgency of the recent Synthesis Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released on 17 November in Valencia, Spain, the declaration calls on governments to reduce emissions "by at least 50% below their 1990 levels by the year 2050".

The Bali Declaration endorses the latest scientific consensus that every effort must be made to keep increases in the globally averaged surface temperature to below 2 degrees C.

The scientists say that "to stay below 2 degrees C, global emissions must peak and decline in the next 10 to 15 years".

The critical reductions in global emissions of greenhouse gases and the atmospheric stabilisation target highlighted in the Bali Declaration places a tremendous responsibility on the Bali United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Negotiations at Bali must start the process of reaching a new global agreement that sets strong and binding targets and includes the vast majority of the nations of the world.

The Bali Declaration concludes: "As scientists, we urge the negotiators to reach an agreement that takes these targets as a minimum requirement for a fair and effective global climate agreement."

The list of signees is considerably more impressive than the IPCC. But I'm sure that 99% of the news media won't even acknowledge the existence of this letter. I've also noticed that most of the media freely interchange the words "temperature" and "CO2." i.e. "The Bali group is hoping to mandate reduced temperature levels."

Time, Newsweek, the New York Times, US News, Science Daily, and the CIA have taken us through many different warming and ice age panics over the years. Fool me once...but four times?

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/images/scinews.jpg
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/images/expandingartic.jpg
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/images/nty-timeline.gif
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/images/nty-timeline2.gif
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/images/FireandIce_10_0001.jpg
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/images/ciareport.jpg

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

Hi Steve Bloom,

I see that you love the concept of government "mandating temperature." I also see that you love the fact that most newspapers refuse to print anything other than the official UN party line.

Saving the world from CO2 is the only important concept left for mankind. Freedom, prosperity, democracy - who cares? Thank God for people like you who are going to save all of us kicking and screaming idiots. Locutus has spoken.

Ever read "1984" or "Animal House?"

"The scientists say that "to stay below 2 degrees C, global emissions must peak and decline in the next 10 to 15 years".
Good luck with that. Our climate is going to do what it's going to do and anybody who thinks or says otherwise has serious delusions of grandeur.
Steve Bloom, concerning your last link to the climate change center: how long do you think they would remain open if they said it's all or mostly natural? Sounds pretty self-serving to me. It also sounds as if they are on the IPCC payroll because all they did was parrot them.

climate science = lottery, guesswork, if's , could be's, etc
physics = science
meteorology = science
geology = science
statistics = science
lol

The earth;s climate is constantly changing. Whether the cause is natural or man-made, those specues who fail to adapt will become extinct. While a reduction in pollution is probably not a bad idea, much of the suffering taking place today is due to man;s incursion into known, highly vulnerable areas where floods and other extreme weather phenomena have been taking place since time immemoriable. Over population is a much more serious threat than environmental changes.

I am very surprised that you believe that THIS global warming does not have much to do with air pollution. Anyway, this is a free country, fortunately, so all the opinions are welcome. Still, I am saddened by your position.

The problem as I see it is we think we can control our climate. We see climate change as a problem that we must solve. Climate change is something that has always happened over long periods of time on our planet, we must learn to adapt. To me this is the central problem with all this debate. The focus is on what we should do to stop the change, that is all wrong. We need to focus on what our needs will be if the planet is warmer / cooler and how we will ensure they are available.

The real scary thing to me is how the global warming "experts" are talking about radical solutions like fertilizing the ocean with iron or putting sulphur into the upper atomsphere. That scares the crap out of me. These "solutions" get publicized on CNN.com or other mainstream news and are presented as information from "scientists" so the general population believes it to be a viable solution. I would like to see ANY data which shows the long term consequences of any of these radical ideas proposed. It is these things that people should be scared of, not global warming. Our planet will heat and cool as normal and, if we are close to as smart as we think we are, we will learn to live with what our planet provides. Spending our energy thinking of half baked ways to control our planet is not only a waste of human effort, it is truly dangerous.

Bill

I actually support cleaning up the environment. However the tactics of Gore and UN are in the long run undermining sensible cleanup. Hysteria will only prolong the mess we have now. I think the Republican involvement and conservative Dems will work to clean up in a much more effective manner than radical greens. except in the field of Nuclear. Anyway my two cents.

Kevin Rudd recoils from climate change pledge

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd last night did an about-face on deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, days after Australia's delegation backed the plan at the climate talks in Bali.

A government representative at the talks this week said Australia backed a 25-40 per cent cut on 1990 emission levels by 2020.

But after warnings it would lead to huge rises in electricity prices, Mr Rudd said the Government would not support the target.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22883548-662,00.html

I thought Global Warming was a liberal conspericy designed to squeeze the wealthy. Now it is happening and can't be stopped? Perhaps the great expert in the White House will clerify this for us common folk.

I find it really disappointing that so much effort is being expended on the whole global warming issue. Does it really matter if the polar bears have no place to live in 200 years if they are all dead from lead and mercury poisoning anyway.

This whole warming issue has unfortunately turned the worlds focus away from the real problem we have and that is toxic waste. I can guarantee that more humans, animals and plants will have died in a 100 years from toxic waste than will die from a warmer planet.

Carbon dioxide from cars does not kill, carbon monoxide, carbon disulphide and hydrogen sulphide does. Fish can live in water that is a degree warmer than normal, they will die if it's contaminated with benzene. Waste from millions of cows may cause some polar ice to melt but I guarentee the poorly managed waste of one will kill you if it gets into your untreated water supply.

Its time to stop spending so much time on a warming planet and get back to worrying about the toxic garbage that we spreading across the land. That has much more potential to kill us in a hundred years than the melting polar ice.

Although none of the signers lists their connections to the oil, coal and nuclear industry, just googling their names shows that most of them have these connections, either directly through employment, or indirectly through energy industry funded "think" tanks who have taken great pains to conceal this relationship. Why these individuals and organizations try to conceal these ties might be a good question for "60 Minutes" to dig into.

I'm still waiting for the winter superstorm with super heavy snowfall to develop. Pittsburgh weather, proof that GW is a crock, right Oiz?

By the way, it's baking hot down here.

I agree that we, humans, cannot control the climate. But we can control our contribution to the earth's atmosphere and to the climate.

There is no scientific doubt that a global warming is happening. Whether it's a natural cause or whether it's induced by humans, the discussion has now become purely academic, if not religious.

Maybe the focus should change from our role in so-called climate control to our role in atmosphere pollution control. We would at least reduce our incidence of cancers, lung diseases and the like. I certainly wouldn't mind stepping outside in the summer and not feel chocking in the smog. And, who knows, we may realize in 100 years that in doing so we would have also impacted the causes of global warming.
Nothing to lose either way.

Dr. Ball is a well known spokesman for the oil industry, making well into the 6 figures giving anti-global warming speeches all paid for by Big-Oil and the vast majority of the rest of the experts listed in the linked news story you linked to in your story are predominantly non-climate scientists; don't belive me?

Here's some examples:

Timothy F. Ball, PhD; environmental consultant paid for by big oil, also not a real climate scientist by training

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist; my he's not even a scientist, much less a climate scientist

William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering; he's not a scientist, he's an agricultural engineer. I'm sorry but designing irrigation systems and ag. buildings does not qualify him to do climate research.

Ernst-Georg Beck, Biologist; again not a climate scientist

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD; geography, again not a climate scientist

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc; biology; again not a climate scientist

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion; he is an engineer, not climate scientist

Owen McShane, PhD, economist, wow businessman, not even trained in science!

Reply: It was stated that not everyone was a climate scientist. There were a number of people with a wide range of specialties. That is no secret and it was not intended to be a secret.

and so the list goes; if you look hard at the vast majority of each of the so called expert signatorys you'll find the vast majority of them have a ZERO track record of publishing global warming articles into reputable peer-reviewed journals on climatology. In short, they simply are not qualified to pass judgement on global warming as they lack sufficient training and expertise.

""Oops, almost forgot: It turns out that there was another Bali letter, this one signed by a couple hundred actual climate scientists. ""

It does not say that they are actual climate scientists
Very few of them do they list what their field is in