Canadian Health Professionals Call for Climate Action
The Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association and the Canadian Federation of Medical Students have joined together to call on Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to put the health of the world’s citizens first at the upcoming UN climate summit in Copenhagen. All three organizations called on the federal government to to commit to science-based reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to help protect the world’s people from the disastrous human consequences of climate change.
“Canada’s physicians strongly believe that the health of the world’s population must be the central consideration when governments deliberate on public policy whether at home or abroad,” says Anne Doig, president of the Canadian Medical Association. “In Copenhagen, Canada must step up and take a collaborative approach for action on climate change.
physicians and nurses
that's who i would look to for the latest in climate research. you guys are too funny. mention a denier that is a physicist, astronomer,chemist etc and the response is that its "not his field". get a group who are alarmists and its headline news...pathetic.
Has the apartment building
Has the apartment building manager association been heard on this issue yet? How about the plumbers union and the association of disorganized meeting attenders?
or wait - how about the chamber of commerce?
Clean shot mascereye
real
"paid attention to real scientists"....i would suspect you consider mann and jones in that category. i also suspect you try to rationalize the leaked e-mails content. how can you dismiss this? so with all that is going on , i mean jones is evidently stepping down, you write in your reply " for those of us who have actually paid attention to real scientists ". i guess we have very different definitions of "real".
Definition of a real scientist
mascereye -- based on your comment, you fall into the category of someone who defines a "real scientist" as someone who agrees with your preconceived notions.
Others here take the position that a real scientist is someone who possesses formal training in a specific discipline and continuously demonstrates those skills by performing research that is peer-reviewed by others so trained, and then have that researched published and cited by other scientists in their research.
Your lack of understanding about the facts behind the Jones/CRU matter highlight this. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor of UEA stated the following:
"There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation. CRU’s peer-reviewed publications are consistent with, and have contributed to, the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is being strongly influenced by human activity."
A real scientist would incorporate that data into his research. But you do not -- because it does not support your pre-conceived notions.
UEA
ok dennis let's ask the UEA. that's where i would go to get an honest evaluation of this situation. i once asked a fox where all the chickens went. i think a real scientist does not hide data, throw away data, change data, suppress peer review and then lie about it. what scares me is that there are people like you who either can't see the truth or do whatever it takes to hide that truth. real scientists put out a theory and have their peers test it to see if it holds water. did these "scientists" make their data available to anyone outside their little group? no. did the data disappear? yes. do you really think that disappearance was a mistake? after reading that one of these bozo's said that he would delete the data before giving it over do you still think that the deleted data was deleted by mistake? real scientists? how about a cabal?
"got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main whipping boy. (...) If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically
(...) I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review - Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting - to support Dave Stahle's and really as soon as you can. Please".. this needs interpretation? HE STATES THAT THE MATH SEEMS TO BE CORRECT AND IF PUBLISHED COULD DO SOME DAMAGE. what don't i understand about this that you do understand? i would love an answer.
"From: Tom Wigley, Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:17:29 -0600
Mike's idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work -- must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too."
"If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available - raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals."
"can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" from jones! there is your scientists view of the peer review process. you need someone to hold your hand to help you understand what this means? there is ambiguity here?
so i have lack of understanding?
do ANY of the e-mails released give you pause? or is this your religion too?
Are you attacking the scientists or the science?
When, in writing about science, you resort to terms like "these bozo's," "a cabal," and "is this your religion?" you've basically just confirmed what I previously wrote about the statements you've made. Individual scientists may be at fault; that is why Jones has temporarily stepped down. But that says nothing about the entire body of published scientific research.
I need explanations
Richard, explain to me what should be done about the alleged global warming. Sorry, but I just do not see how a cap and trade program is going to effect the temperature. CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere and I don't think a lot of people understand this. I understand the premise, it makes sense. We're putting all of this pollution and smoke into the air and the net effect has to be warming, much like the sun. But net effect of clouds is to cool the earth. And obviously, most of the co2 we are emitting is radiating into outerspace. It takes a molecule of co2 5 years to become part of the atmosphere so it just seems to me that its not a big problem.
You've been arguing about
You've been arguing about this for a long time, and you don't know the most basic facts yet?
"...Heat exits the Earth system as the Earth’s surface, warmed by solar energy, radiates heat away. However, certain gases in our atmosphere, called greenhouse gases, allow the lower atmosphere to absorb the heat radiated from the Earth’s surface, trapping heat within the Earth system. Greenhouse gases, such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, are an important part of our atmosphere because they keep Earth from becoming an icy sphere with surface temperatures of about 0°F. However, over the past century or so the amounts of greenhouse gases within our atmosphere have been increasing rapidly, mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Consequently, in the past one hundred years global temperatures have been increasing more rapidly than the historic record shows. Scientists believe this accelerated heating of the atmosphere is because increasing amounts of these greenhouse gases trap more and more heat...
http://www.eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
right - and how much the
right - and how much the overall effect on temperature is going to be is a complete grey area because of the unknown complexities of positive and negative feedbacks out there.
Climate Cover-Up: (Kindle Edition)
Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming (Kindle Edition)
Just got it!!!
Thanks
PS
Also you have a small problem. The Kindle edition does not show up as an additional format from the paperback option. (Only shows up on searching)
I appreciate it. It's difficult to read your paperback version because of the font size (me personally I'm sure younger eyes work better). Also sorry for being off-topic.
Global Warming
This rings of the typical scenario where the union leadership comes out and supports the NDP meanwhile all their members go vote conservative or liberal.
In any event the credibility factor is pretty low for a movement that requires a "WWII like effort" to succeed. I bet if you did a poll during WWII the popular support would have been in the 90%+ range, I doubt support for greenhouse gas initiatives would ever register 35% if polled today.
The question now is where does the copenhagen treaty movement do now? I figure getting any kind of a deal is a must for survival. If nothing comes out of copenhagen, you can expect to see popular support drain away like a plug pulled from a tub.
To put the final nail in the coffin we need to see more natural evidence that counters Anthorpogencic global warming, IE global temperature averages coninue to be cooler than 1998, melting glaciers, mount kilomunjaro melting, dead polar bears needs to continue to be debunked in scientific journals all the while C02 increases in concentration in the environment.
Secondly international politics have to become realigned so that an international treaty of some kind becomes a poison pill, like we are seeing in Australia and the US right now. Countries like Canada have to take policies that align our emission interests with other countries domestic political interests. We need to complete the pipeline to vancouver and start shipping more oil to china and diversify oilsands upgrading into the USA so that they have jobs,economic activity and pollution attached to our oilsands. As well as continuing to create jobs in Ontario, sask, bc and quebec through major crude mining and other c02 intensive projects.
Thirdly; the normal people have to do what the global warming lobby has done so well. Taint anybody that has a diferent view as unethical and outside of the mainstream. David Suzuki has not made one environmental predicition that was accurate in his life and is basically a marxist living the lifestyle of a rockafeller. It's not really tough to do as these people taint themselves.
Lastly; environmental issues are completely seperate from Carbon emission treaties, that is a banking scheme to redistribute wealth and create new business empires. Their is no point to a factory retooling it's operations so it creates more solid waste to go to a landfill or a river to reduce airborn carbon emissions. Global warming has to be put in it's proper context as an issue that may or may not be important but the problem will solve itself over time with technology. 100 years from now carbon emission will not be an issue, but clean drinking water and lack of water and an unhealthy environment is an issue today.
I think we can beat the global warming communists if just one of the above occurs. They are on the run and it's time to spear them in the back.