How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Labor Party Wins in Australia   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Labor Party Wins in Australia

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


0 posted 11-24-2007 01:49 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer


SYDNEY, Australia - Conservative Prime Minister John Howard suffered a humiliating defeat Saturday at the hands of the left-leaning opposition, whose leader has promised to immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.


That is sad news. I hope our Australian friends don't regret this decision.
TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


1 posted 11-24-2007 04:05 PM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

oh, dear sir, after "turkey", you start worrying about Australia.

You know that Conservative /liberal means differently in different countries. Are you sure that you felt the RIGHT sad?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


2 posted 11-24-2007 04:07 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


I agree, I was looking forward to warmer summers too.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


3 posted 11-24-2007 06:09 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Tom, I wasn't referring to liberal/conservatives but rather the Kyoto treaty.

Grinch, you won't see warmer summers in your lifetime, or your children's lifetimes, or your grandchildren's lifetime....unless you want to come visit me in Florida
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


4 posted 11-24-2007 07:33 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Grinch, you won't see warmer summers in your lifetime, or your children's lifetimes, or your grandchildren's lifetime....unless you want to come visit me in Florida


And be on the same continent as a super volcano? No thanks!

Actually historical global trends in meteorology suggest it will get warmer here in Europe, regardless of mans intervention. Of course that’s only until the Atlantic Conveyor ceases to function due to the freshwater melt currently underway at the polar icecap. At that point the 5-7 degree drop in temperature should kick off a long overdue period of global cooling.

That’s if a meteor or bird flu hasn’t finished us all off.

TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


5 posted 11-24-2007 07:47 PM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

What is wrong with Kyoto protocol? Bush himself after refusing sign it made some "kind" comments  to the nature to wipe his mouth. He purely wanted to protect US industry...not wrong but at what price?

warm or cool, extra CO2(and other gases) is not good.

Tomtoo
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


6 posted 11-24-2007 09:50 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

No doubt, grinch. It will get warmer...and it will get colder...and the continents will merge...and it's factual that the Milky Way will collide with the Andromeda galaxy and all life will end.........nothing of which has to due with our current "blame it on global warming" routines.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


7 posted 11-24-2007 09:55 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Tomtoo, I could go on for hours about the Kyoto protocol but let me just say that (1) it hurts the economy of the developed nations (2) it stunts growth of the undeveloped nations (3) it causes the undeveloped nations to demand compensation from the developed ones for not allowing them to develop (4) it has not been working (5) it tries to solve a non-problem, according to many hundreds of scientists around the world. That's enough for starters....
TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


8 posted 11-24-2007 10:57 PM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

Wah, Wah, wah, this is Alley and I am talking to a Moderator.

The only thing halt economy growth is war or unjustified internal policy. not Kyoto as you said, it is not working, in either way!!

As for developing economy, what do you think American people want?  A 767 jet each house hood? let along many are complaining about the big SUV.


Under-developed world...many have historic reasons...and if the government is right, people will sure live better life as to food, clean water, shelter, and political freedom. and the world is changing all the time. 300 years ago, US was not there. 300 hundred years later, who knows? nothing is related to CO2. but individual human life could be influenced. How many health tragedies have we seen due to industrial pollution?

"it has not been working" ...you are right. US's attitude is an example of the world. Acknowledging it or not, US's living style set an example for the world because it is a free country and it is a freeland that everyone has a chance to develop oneself. But if government is for the F-500 and protect them at any cost as saving them from down in market with government money and not tighten the rule of emission of waste which help them to reduce the cost so they can earn more....Kyoto just one of them. Whose interest is it protecting by not sign it or loosing some industry rules?  Now some of the industry of pollution has gone east and south. Do you call this helping developing countries? I think WHO has many stories on this topic.

Someday, We shall all drink polluted bottled water, eat contaminated organic food and breath the filtered CO2..May new technology gives us fins. We may end up starting real evolution, evolve back to  Amoeba. ????

anything...extra  more is bad.

[This message has been edited by TomMark (11-24-2007 11:46 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


9 posted 11-24-2007 11:05 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Wah, Wah, wah, this is Alley and I am talking to a Moderator.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. have a nice evening.....
TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


10 posted 11-24-2007 11:13 PM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

Dear Sir Balladeer, I mean that I shall not talk back to a beloved moderator.....
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


11 posted 11-24-2007 11:48 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

We are all the same in here, Tom...(except for Brad)
TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


12 posted 11-25-2007 10:49 AM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

My dear sir, finally you agree with me. Thank you    

And it is indeed a good corner to gossip about Sir Brad

Sir Brad brought out bright bars
to set several serious stands up
for poets to post on CA per piptalk
but drove my dream of drill into drain.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


13 posted 11-25-2007 09:54 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

I only have one real central complaint about the Kyoto Protocol which is, simply, rapidly developing countries such as China and India are not included in its requirements to reduce greenhouse gases. Without their inclusion, it is unfair, I believe, and I do believe the US Senate was right to vote in 1999 not to ratify it unless they do their part as well.

As far as the other common critiques are concerned, however, I believe the Kyoto Protocol is a worthy cause. I believe a lot of the economic arguments being made by its chief critics are exaggerative, Chicken Little-esque "the sky is falling" speculations, which, by the way, many of which are not that different at all from the arguments quite a few were making about many pieces of environmental legislation during the conservation movement, including the initial 1963 Clean Air Act and its 1970 extension, where such pieces of legislation would overreach and be a burden on both our national economy and state economies. And, as we now know, those fears were much ado about nothing, with these large-scale environmental interventions turning out to be significantly cheaper than expected, such as the cost of reducing SO2 emissions to battle acid rain, where opponents of the original Clean Air Act originally argued that it would cost our nation anywhere from $400 to $1,000 per ton under that act, but in 2000 SO2 allowances were priced between $130 and $155 per ton. Heck, businesses, including a mining company known as Inco, who originally railed against such legislation are now PROFITING due to the act pressuring them and others to adopt new mining operations that emit less pollution.

In addition, many of the studies that argue that Kyoto will hamper the American economy were 1) carried out before our nation was ever even a signatory, and 2) they do not consider or account for the the human health benefits, the benefits of government and consumer investment in new technology and infrastructure and the mounting costs of climate change themselves which, as one Tellus Institute study researched and argues, ultimately brings about a net benefit for developed nations including the United States, even economically in the longer run.

As for the claims that the Protocol will result in job losses, particularly in the maufacturing sector: I actually believe the opposite. I believe it ushers and encourages new job opportunities by developing a green economic model. In fact, I read that investments in energy efficiency create four times as many jobs as investments in new energy do, with the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy even estimating that an annual investment of $46 billion from 1992 to 2010 would have resulted in a 24% reduction in carbon emissions and created approximately 1.1 million new American jobs by 2010. So, sustainability creates many jobs, with far more longevity than the call by some to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ever would, which would be fleeting, temporary jobs.

*

I certainly understand that there is a pricetag to this, and in the short term some sacrifices will be made, which I consider minor as they are when you consider the overall future of our planet, as well as the availability of more sustainable, renewable and cost-efficient energy resources and technology. But in the longer term, I think this is a rather reasonable proposal, and will ultimately only benefit us all around.

Are we, as Americans, willing to adapt their lifestyles for such an endeavor? Well, the fact we're already a signatory is notable as it is, but beyond that, we have always been a green nation, in that we're sensitive about our environment and value clean air, clean waters, clean forests, etc. even if our government sometimes doesn't seem eye to eye with us on that. And fron what I've heard, I've heard from many that they'd be willing to pay up to about $500 a year to implement Kyoto, if it meant what I hinted out in the previous paragraph of my response.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


14 posted 11-25-2007 11:40 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

But in the longer term, I think this is a rather reasonable proposal, and will ultimately only benefit us all around.

A lot of people disagree with you,  Noah. for example.....

the document agreed upon in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December is a flawed one: it has none of the drastic emissions curbs scientists say are essential in averting climate chaos.

Yes, the agreement is historically important as it will, for the first time, legally bind developed countries to rein in emissions of heat-trapping gases. But in practical terms the Kyoto Protocol is an empty vessel which is unlikely to turn down the heat.

The protocol fails on all points. It is a compromise, acknowledges Malaysia's climate treaty negotiator Chow Kok Kee, a Meteorological Services director.

'The protocol is unlikely to make any difference. It gives the false impression that a breakthrough has been achieved but there are too many loopholes,' says Gurmit Singh, regional co-ordinator of Climate Action Network South-East Asia, an organisation of public interest groups working on the climate issue.

The holes in the protocol essentially mean business as usual for the large greenhouse gas emitters, as long as they pay poorer nations to do the dirty job of cutting emissions.

Environment group Greenpeace says the Kyoto targets will produce an actual overall reduction of gases by 1% or 2% only. We need a 60% reduction to make a dent on the gaseous 'glass' dome which now envelopes the globe, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the advisory scientific body to the climate treaty).

To make matters worse, reduction targets can be changed only with the consent of the concerned party. In other words, 'it gives the country a veto mechanism. So you cannot raise the emission target as long as the country disagrees. This makes future target changes difficult,' Gurmit points out.

Topping a long list of loopholes in the Kyoto Protocol is 'emissions trading'. This enables a country which has exceeded its emissions quota to 'buy' another country's unused quota.  Critics also cry foul over 'emissions banking', whereby a country that emits less than it's supposed to can 'carry forward' the surplus to the subsequent period.

Equally controversial is the concept of joint implementation, where a country which invests in climate-friendly projects, such as reforestation or clean energy facilities, elsewhere can claim credits to offset its own emissions.  Yet another flaw in the protocol is the inclusion of carbon sinks (natural entities such as forests and soil which can absorb carbon dioxide) in emissions accounting.

So a country can subtract the amount of greenhouse gases supposedly absorbed by sinks from its total emissions. However, the case against this is the fact that there is much scientific uncertainty about exactly how much carbon the sinks can remove from the atmosphere.

Ultimately, though, you have to ask the question: what use is a treaty if there are no penalties for non-compliance?
This issue was pushed aside at Kyoto, and will only be sorted out sometime in the future.

Given the long list of caveats, it is no wonder that Greenpeace's Bill Hare labels the Kyoto outcome a 'tragedy and a farce'.
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/kyt-cn.htm  


The Kyoto Treaty is not working, Noah. It's similar to the UN, good at issuing orders with no ability to enforce them. The "emmisions trading' is a joke, also, similar to Al Gore's buying energy credits to continue using obscene amounts of energy while claiming to be working toward cutting energy. I wonder if he got the idea from them or they from him???

There are many more flaws in it which I would be happy to dwell on, if necessary, but just the fact that someone like Bill Hare of Greenpeace would label it a "farce" speaks volumes.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


15 posted 11-26-2007 01:11 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.”


Michael Griffin
NASA Administrator

.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


16 posted 11-26-2007 01:50 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

So, post the rest of the story John.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


17 posted 11-26-2007 03:53 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I consulted one of the world's great thinkers on the subject and this is what she said...

TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


18 posted 11-26-2007 05:48 PM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

My dear Sir Balladeer, you finally got the right reference.  She has obviously got into an very hormone unbalanced stage and she needs a gynecologist!!!!

You certainly meant that the climate was out of balance. i agree with ya!!!
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


19 posted 11-26-2007 08:46 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi


LR,


There is no "story".
The comment speaks for itself?

Answer it . . .

John

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


20 posted 11-27-2007 12:03 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

What does the comment say for itself John?

What are Griffin's qualifications to be making such a statement?  Any more or less than yours?

Do you usually hire a plumber to fix your leaky roof?

What did climatologists have to say about Griffins comment?

Is Griffin glad he made the statement?

Who appointed Griffin to be head of NASA?  When?

What did Griffin work on before that?

Is there any indication that Griffin might have a particular political bias that is contributing to his 'non-technical' opinion?

There is always a story John.  People don't just say things in a vacuum.

It is apparent though that the reason the Right is so concerned about Kyoto is they fear it may impede thier ability to spew hot-air into the atmosphere.
TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


21 posted 11-27-2007 09:52 AM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

"Prominent climate scientists have referred to his (Griffin's)remarks as ignorant. In particular, James Hansen, NASA's top official on climate change, said Griffin’s comments showed “arrogance and ignorance”, as millions will likely be harmed by global warming. Jerry Mahlman, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said that Griffin was either “totally clueless” or “a deep antiglobal warming ideologue.”"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


22 posted 11-28-2007 10:40 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

hmmm...need qualifications to make comments valid, LR? Ok, then....

The following list includes more than 500 qualified researchers, their home institutions, and the peer-reviewed studies they have published in professional journals providing historic and/or physical proxy evidence that:

1) Most of the recent global warming has been caused by a long, moderate, natural cycle rather than by the burning of fossil fuels;

2) The sun’s varying radiance impacts the Earth’s climate as more or fewer cosmic rays create more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that act as the Earth’s thermostats, deflecting more or less solar heat out into space.

3) Sea levels are not rising rapidly nor are they likely to;

4) Wild species are not being driven to extinction but rather are increasing the biodiversity of our wildlands;

5) Fewer human deaths are likely rather than more as the current warming continues, since cold is far more dangerous and the Earth is always warming or cooling;

6) Food production is likely to thrive during the decades ahead, rather than collapsing due to climate overheating;

7) Our storms are likely to be fewer and milder as the declining temperature differential between the equator and the poles reduces their power.

The list includes researchers from many of the world’s top research institutions, such as the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory affiliated with Columbia University, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysical Research, the Woods Hole and Scripps Oceanographic Institutes, Sweden’s Upsala University, Australia’s Waikato University, South Africa’s Witwatersrand University, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21977

need more???


Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming (An open letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper)

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet, this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto, and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the Protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase, used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming, and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time, due to natural causes, and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise."

        Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
        · Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility, and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
        · Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa.
        · Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa.
        · Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards.
        · Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario.
        · Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Ontario.
        · Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant.
        · Dr. Andreas Prokocon, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology.
        · Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member, and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa.
        · Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
        · Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Department of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta.
        · Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
        · Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
        · Dr. Peter Chylek, adjunct professor, Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax.
        · Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
        · Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta.
        · Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Virginia, and Sioux Lookout, Ontario.
        · Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
        · Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary.
        · Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ontario.
        · Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z
        · Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
        · Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, New Jersey.
        · Mr. George Taylor, Department of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists.
        · Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia.
        · Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.
        · Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review.
        · Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.
        · Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand.
        · Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia.
        · Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics and geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
        · Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California.
        · Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville.
        · Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota.
        · Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
        · Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health).
        · Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland.
        · Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Department of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy and Environment.
        · Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), and an economist who has focused on climate change.
        · Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey.
        · Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway.
        · Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand.
        · Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC, and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," Wellington, N.Z.
          Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut.
        · Dr. Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.
        · Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
        · Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
        · Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service.
        · Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society.
        · Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University.
        · Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
        · Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book, The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland.
        · Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany.        ·
          Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland.
        · Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden.
        · Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California; atmospheric consultant.
        · Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Oregon.
        · Dr. Arthur Rörsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food, and public health.
        · Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist.
        · Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
http://www.restoringamerica.org/SpecialFeatures/sixty_scientists_call_on_harper_.htm


If those aren't enough qualified people, I can come up with more......

It is apparent though that the reason the Right is so concerned about Kyoto is they fear it may impede thier ability to spew hot-air into the atmosphere.

I think you know as well as I that hot air is in abundance on both sides of the aisle



TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


23 posted 11-28-2007 02:24 PM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

Sir Balladeer, you selected the voices to speak for you but be objective so you shall not quote from Heartland, a very self-interest group.

Let's take Global warming  as science but not politics no matter how many politicians are jumping on that to get credit.  

And interestingly, you list "the Chinese Academy of Sciences" as top research institute. I would not put my trust on those confused old-fix minds." young, fresh thought has not get a chance to get in yet.

I believe that there are pure scientific voices there
and GW being a theory are to be argued by two sides and we can choose what we believe but not president related.

[This message has been edited by TomMark (11-28-2007 03:39 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


24 posted 11-28-2007 04:26 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

You are right, Tom. There are many experts on both sides on this topic which raises an interesting point. How can something considered to be  so completely factual by the UN, Al Gore, and many governments have so many professional dissenters on the other side? Certainly the fact alone that there are so many on both sides would indicate that it is not as clear as some would have you believe.

I feel pretty confident that if one were to study the credentials of those on both sides, it would be overwhelmingly evident the the pro-gw by human activity would be more government supported than the anti's. Just a guess....

Let's take Global warming  as science but not politics no matter how many politicians are jumping on that to get credit.

Study the reports I just displayed and you will see science, not politics.

[This message has been edited by Balladeer (11-28-2007 05:02 PM).]

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Labor Party Wins in Australia   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors