On Jul 2, 6:50*pm, crunch wrote:
Accuweatherhttp://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/07/the_state_of_climate_sc...

David Christainsen - Meteorologist

••*Why do you waste the bandwidth with this guy's BS?

- -
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:17:08 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jul 2, 6:50Â*pm, crunch wrote:
Accuweatherhttp://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/07/the_state_of_climate_sc...

David Christainsen - Meteorologist

••Â*Why do you waste the bandwidth with this guy's BS?

- -
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.

The following has just emerged from the Australian Senate. The
original papers behind the full report may be found at
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/the-wong-fielding-meeting-on-global-warming-documents/
Particularly note the final paragraph below:

"We add, with respect to (iii), that the scientific community is
now so polarised on the controversial issue of dangerous global
warming that proper due diligence on the matter can only be
achieved where competent scientific witnesses are cross-examined
under oath and under strict rules of evidence."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Minister Wong's Reply to Senator Fielding's Three Questions on
Climate Change - Due Diligence

Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks & William Kininmonth

PREAMBLE

Emissions trading legislation, such as the "Carbon Pollution
Reduction Scheme" (CPRS) bill that is currently before parliament,
rests upon the assumption that human greenhouse emissions,
especially carbon dioxide, (i) are pollutants, and (ii) are causing
dangerous global warming. Neither of these assumptions is supported
by empirical evidence, and both have been under scientific
challenge for many years by a large body of qualified and
independent scientists.

Cognisant of these facts, Senator Steve Fielding has posed three
direct questions to the Minister for Climate Change, Senator Penny
Wong, in order to clarify whether or not evidence exists that human
carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming, as
alleged by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC).

The Minister's replies to the Fielding questions drew heavily on
IPCC arguments and advice. Parliament, in preparing to implement
policy based upon the advice of an international political agency,
has not hitherto had available to it a due diligence scientific
assessment of the adequacy of the IPCC recommendations (Professor
Garnaut's extensive report being an economic and not a scientific
analysis). As independent scientists, and at the request of
Senator Fielding, we provide preliminary scientific due diligence
in this document.

Our conclusions a

(i) that whilst recent increases in greenhouse gases play a minor
radiative role in global climate, no strong evidence exists
that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing, or are likely
to cause, dangerous global warming;

(ii) that it is unwise for government environmental policy to be
set based upon monopoly advice, and especially so when that
monopoly is represented by an international political (not
scientific) agency; and

(iii) that the results of implementing emissions trading
legislation will be so costly, troublingly regressive,
socially divisive and environmentally ineffective that
Parliament should defer consideration of the CPRS bill and
institute a fully independent Royal Commission of enquiry
into the evidence for and against a dangerous human
influence on climate.

We add, with respect to (iii), that the scientific community is
now so polarised on the controversial issue of dangerous global
warming that proper due diligence on the matter can only be
achieved where competent scientific witnesses are cross-examined
under oath and under strict rules of evidence.



Eric Stevens

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:17:08 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jul 2, 6:50 pm, crunch wrote:
Accuweatherhttp://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/07/the_state_of_climate_sc...

David Christainsen - Meteorologist

.. Why do you waste the bandwidth with this guy's BS?

- -
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.

The following has just emerged from the Australian Senate. The
original papers behind the full report may be found at
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/the-wong-fielding-meeting-on-global-warming-documents/
Particularly note the final paragraph below:

"We add, with respect to (iii), that the scientific community is
now so polarised on the controversial issue of dangerous global
warming that proper due diligence on the matter can only be
achieved where competent scientific witnesses are cross-examined
under oath and under strict rules of evidence."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Minister Wong's Reply to Senator Fielding's Three Questions on
Climate Change - Due Diligence

Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks & William Kininmonth

PREAMBLE

Emissions trading legislation, such as the "Carbon Pollution
Reduction Scheme" (CPRS) bill that is currently before parliament,
rests upon the assumption that human greenhouse emissions,
especially carbon dioxide, (i) are pollutants, and (ii) are causing
dangerous global warming. Neither of these assumptions is supported
by empirical evidence, and both have been under scientific
challenge for many years by a large body of qualified and
independent scientists.

Cognisant of these facts, Senator Steve Fielding has posed three
direct questions to the Minister for Climate Change, Senator Penny
Wong, in order to clarify whether or not evidence exists that human
carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming, as
alleged by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC).

The Minister's replies to the Fielding questions drew heavily on
IPCC arguments and advice. Parliament, in preparing to implement
policy based upon the advice of an international political agency,
has not hitherto had available to it a due diligence scientific
assessment of the adequacy of the IPCC recommendations (Professor
Garnaut's extensive report being an economic and not a scientific
analysis). As independent scientists, and at the request of
Senator Fielding, we provide preliminary scientific due diligence
in this document.

Our conclusions a

(i) that whilst recent increases in greenhouse gases play a minor
radiative role in global climate, no strong evidence exists
that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing, or are likely
to cause, dangerous global warming;

(ii) that it is unwise for government environmental policy to be
set based upon monopoly advice, and especially so when that
monopoly is represented by an international political (not
scientific) agency; and

(iii) that the results of implementing emissions trading
legislation will be so costly, troublingly regressive,
socially divisive and environmentally ineffective that
Parliament should defer consideration of the CPRS bill and
institute a fully independent Royal Commission of enquiry
into the evidence for and against a dangerous human
influence on climate.

We add, with respect to (iii), that the scientific community is
now so polarised on the controversial issue of dangerous global
warming that proper due diligence on the matter can only be
achieved where competent scientific witnesses are cross-examined
under oath and under strict rules of evidence.



Eric Stevens

Well then, if the politicians have spoken, who can doubt.

On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 11:54:18 -0500, "zayton"
wrote:


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:17:08 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jul 2, 6:50 pm, crunch wrote:
Accuweatherhttp://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/07/the_state_of_climate_sc...

David Christainsen - Meteorologist

.. Why do you waste the bandwidth with this guy's BS?

- -
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.

The following has just emerged from the Australian Senate. The
original papers behind the full report may be found at
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/the-wong-fielding-meeting-on-global-warming-documents/
Particularly note the final paragraph below:

"We add, with respect to (iii), that the scientific community is
now so polarised on the controversial issue of dangerous global
warming that proper due diligence on the matter can only be
achieved where competent scientific witnesses are cross-examined
under oath and under strict rules of evidence."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Minister Wong's Reply to Senator Fielding's Three Questions on
Climate Change - Due Diligence

Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks & William Kininmonth

PREAMBLE

Emissions trading legislation, such as the "Carbon Pollution
Reduction Scheme" (CPRS) bill that is currently before parliament,
rests upon the assumption that human greenhouse emissions,
especially carbon dioxide, (i) are pollutants, and (ii) are causing
dangerous global warming. Neither of these assumptions is supported
by empirical evidence, and both have been under scientific
challenge for many years by a large body of qualified and
independent scientists.

Cognisant of these facts, Senator Steve Fielding has posed three
direct questions to the Minister for Climate Change, Senator Penny
Wong, in order to clarify whether or not evidence exists that human
carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming, as
alleged by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC).

The Minister's replies to the Fielding questions drew heavily on
IPCC arguments and advice. Parliament, in preparing to implement
policy based upon the advice of an international political agency,
has not hitherto had available to it a due diligence scientific
assessment of the adequacy of the IPCC recommendations (Professor
Garnaut's extensive report being an economic and not a scientific
analysis). As independent scientists, and at the request of
Senator Fielding, we provide preliminary scientific due diligence
in this document.

Our conclusions a

(i) that whilst recent increases in greenhouse gases play a minor
radiative role in global climate, no strong evidence exists
that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing, or are likely
to cause, dangerous global warming;

(ii) that it is unwise for government environmental policy to be
set based upon monopoly advice, and especially so when that
monopoly is represented by an international political (not
scientific) agency; and

(iii) that the results of implementing emissions trading
legislation will be so costly, troublingly regressive,
socially divisive and environmentally ineffective that
Parliament should defer consideration of the CPRS bill and
institute a fully independent Royal Commission of enquiry
into the evidence for and against a dangerous human
influence on climate.

We add, with respect to (iii), that the scientific community is
now so polarised on the controversial issue of dangerous global
warming that proper due diligence on the matter can only be
achieved where competent scientific witnesses are cross-examined
under oath and under strict rules of evidence.



Eric Stevens

Well then, if the politicians have spoken, who can doubt.

Not many apparently. Politicians have been speaking since the Kyoto
conference. That includes the IPCC. But I thought you knew that?



Eric Stevens