posted 11-28-2000 05:58 PM            

18,000 versus 2,500 UN commies = you lose.
http://www.anxietycenter.com/feature-6.htm

>Within six weeks, 18,000 others signed the petition, among whom were 2,100 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists. Another 4,400 scientists were specialists in fields that included chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences. <

ADDED 11/29/00 11:45PM EST
http://www.anxietycenter.com/warning.htm
. . .but what this is all about is the utter corruption of elements of the federal government with the intention of frightening enough Americans to accept a United Nations treaty that would plunge this nation into economic decline. These people released a report prior to both the Hague conference and during the final months of Al Gore’s campaign to be your next president. Gore has written that the fight against global warming must be "the central organizing principle for civilization."

No, the central organizing principle for civilization is freedom!

If the economy is ruined, people will be too busy trying to survive and that, my friend, will be just when the Communist message thrives best. They know it. You should know it.

posted 11-30-2000 07:18 PM            

THE HAGUE, The Netherlands, November 24, 2000 (ENS) - The sixth largest insurance company has warned that damage to property due to global warming could bankrupt the world by 2065.

Dr. Andrew Dlugolecki, director of general insurance development at CGNU, told delegates attending the international climate change summit in The Hague that the rate of damage caused by changing weather will exceed the world's wealth.
CGNU is a top five European life insurer and the United Kingdom's largest insurance group.

"Property damage is rising very rapidly, at something like 10 percent a year," he told a briefing at the 6th Conference of Parties (COP 6) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, yesterday.

"We've still not yet really begun to see the effects of climate change in the West. What we are seeing so far is largely the result of more people living in areas which are becoming more dangerous.

"But once this thing begins to happen, it will accelerate extremely rapidly, as the IPCC report makes clear."

...more.

The naysayers still amaze me. They support the vested interests in the profiteering status quo (big oil, automakers, etc.) and label anyone concerned about the rapid rate of environmental change as "commies".

They seem to be happily paying their $2.00 + a gallon, blaming "environmentalists" and yet completely overlook the obscene profits being pulled in by big oil companies through this price gouging of the general public. Where is their outrage over this assault on our collective economy?

posted 11-30-2000 08:12 PM            

If you do an Internet search for "oil reserves", you get a ton of information, much of it announcements by various nations saying they have discovered vast potential new fields of crude oil and are, not surprisingly, eager to tap them.
http://www.anxietycenter.com/moreoil.htm

"We need a new system of values, a system of the organic unity between mankind and nature and the ethic of global responsibility"
Mikhail Gorbachev
President of Green Cross International

The principles of the Earth Charter are closely interrelated. Together they provide a conception of sustainable development and set forth fundamental guidelines for achieving it. These principles are drawn from international law, science, philosophy, religion, recent UN Summit meetings, and the international Earth Charter conversation on global ethics.

The goal of sustainable development is full human development and ecological protection. The Earth Charter recognizes that humanity's environmental, economic, social, cultural, ethical, and spiritual problems and aspirations are interconnected. It affirms the need for holistic thinking and collaborative, integrated problem solving. Sustainable development requires such an approach. It is about freedom, justice, participation, and peace as well as environmental protection and economic well-being.

The Moscow Earth Charter Roundtable:
The Earth Charter as Seen by Modern Science

Moscow, 18-19 September 1997

Green Cross International Information Center

Introduction
http://www.gci.ch/GreenCrossPrograms/earthcharter/seminars/MoscowRoundtable.html

Komrade Throat has hit a sore spot with the sleeping operative formerly known as Chickie Deb. He would rather believe the watermelons than American scientists and think tanks who outnumber the reds.

Still waiting for those checks to arrive. You never answered the question previous, komrade-Who signs your checks? I find it rather amusing that those who have a personal interest in the global agenda accuse patriots of being the sleepers. It's becoming a pattern on these boards and you guys are getting pretty obvious, even to those of us you keep referring to as "stupid."

posted 11-30-2000 08:15 PM            

Major emerging issues identified in the SCOPE survey by 200 scientists in 50 countries:

posted 12-02-2000 03:03 PM            

>>18,000 versus 2,500 UN commies = you lose. http://www.anxietycenter.com/feature-6.htm

>Within six weeks, 18,000 others signed the petition, among whom were 2,100 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists. Another 4,400 scientists were specialists in fields that included chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences. <

And here is a press relase link regarding this little known petition from over two years ago, complete with a link to those signatures.

SEPP News Release: More Than 15,000 Scientists Protest Kyoto Accord; Speak Out Against Global Warming Myth
URL: http://www.sepp.org/pressrel/petition.html

I find the non-response by concerned educators in this thread to your above rebuttal utterly amazing. So far, all you've received by way of criticism of these 18000+ "fringe science" petitoners is a canned script from a bunch of eco-terrorists in the GreenPeace article more recently dispatched here for us.

In case nobody read Nodeb's above link at anxietycenter, it's a thoroughly damning piece that goes not just to the heart of any number of major points being tossed around in this thread, but underscores once more much of what is being said in the Media thread as well.

If the Alan Caruba pieces are a little too excoriating for the tastes of some, there is some very interesting commentary along similar, yet even further and more recent, lines at www.reason.org, web site of the Reason Foundation:

"Mopping up After a Leak: Setting the Record Straight on the 'New' Findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC"

This is but a brief excerpt. The rest is at http://www.rppi.org/ebrief105.html

"The leaked 'Summary for Policymakers' is not peer-reviewed, the author is anonymous, the document is created independently of the actual Assessment Report, and the Summary is so short that issues are overly simplified.

Unlike the main body of the IPCC Third Assessment Report which represents an herculean effort to assess the current state of knowledge about climate change, and which speaks with great credibility because of extensive peer-review, the leaked Summary for Policymakers is not reviewed by the main body of IPCC experts and thus lacks the credibility of the technical reports they claim to summarize.
The author of the summary is not identified, and there is no explanation of the process that generated the Summary, nor specifies whether it was or was not reviewed by the main authors, contributing authors, or expert reviewers that vetted the body of the Third Assessment report.
The Summary for Policymakers is 12 pages long, and theoretically summarizes the Working Group I report (which) is over 1000 pages long as well as parts of the not-yet-finalized Working Group II report, which will probably be over 1000 pages."

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

But in the spirit of true non-partisanship GW debate, we should now and then go to such "mainstream" scientific places for our facts, such as the web site of the Union of Concerned Scientists and their Sound Science Initiatives. Although free with their facts, apparantly they like to conduct some of their mainstream scientific policy-setting a bit on the quieter, inner-sanctum side.

Read for yourself their self-congratulations at 10 or so of their more influential bringing us yet another Clinton Executive Order in February 99. It least that sounds to me what they are claiming. Say. Was that yet another EO in all the mainstream papers?
http://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ssi.html#ssiaccomp

An interesting comment about increasing concentrations of particular influence and power in the hands of an extreme few.

A few are waking up and taking major action surrounding what they see as corrupt White House activity in this but a somewhat wider sphere.

The plaintiffs include three members of Congress.
http://www.cei.org/CHNReader.asp?ID=1227

Back to a thing or two Nodeb has forwarded elsewhere here:

>> http://www.anxietycenter.com/warning.htm

". . .but what this is all about is the utter corruption of elements of the federal government with the intention of frightening enough Americans to accept a United Nations treaty that would plunge this nation into economic decline. These people released a report prior to both the Hague conference and during the final months of Al Gore’s campaign to be your next president. Gore has written that the fight against global warming must be "the central organizing principle for civilization."<<

One more time for the back of the class
(and perhaps the teacher up front, too):

"No, the central organizing principle for civilization is freedom!"

posted 01-15-2001 07:09 PM            

And.... here is more: http://unisci.com/stories/20011/0109014.htm

To cop a favorite tired phrase from the woo-woo vernacular: "Paradigm Shift" THIS!