Well I shall certainly look out for it, but why don't you enlighten us here?
Balling and Michaels demonstrate that the model of global warming adopted at the Rio Summit has consistently deviated from the recorded temperatures, calling it into doubt. (Prometheus 1) They show that in 1995 the IPCC was already having to revise its estimates of global warming to save the data.
>Aren't you putting the cart before the horse? The science of climate change
>drives the Kyoto conference.[JT]
Would that that were true. Rather, the 'science' is being generated by political exigencies.
>The U.N. isn't doing the scientific research, it appoints a panel (the IPCC)
>to do that.
And you aren't remotely concerned that the IPCC is a panel appointed by the United Nations?
> As far as 'relatively' unbiased, the IPCC is far less biased
>than Balling, a geographer by training. He only became a climate change
>skeptic in '91 after receiving a grant from Western Fuels to do research. He
>has since accepted funds from Cyprus Minerals, The German Coal Mining
>Association, The British Coal Corporation, and the Kuwait Foundation for the
>Advancement of Science. Michaels has received funds from Western Fuels,
>Cyprus Minerals, The German Coal Mining Association, Edison Electric
>Institute, and Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research. In comparison I
>feel the IPCC relatively unbiased.
Then you are exceptionally naive. To imagine that the United Nations is a benign body shows some lack of historical perspective.
For my part I am delighted that these industrial capitalists are funding research, whose results can be tested against the evidence. By contrast, the IPCC has attempted to decide the scientific matter by political fiat, which is a threat to free scientific enquiry. But your suggestion that Balling changed his mind because he was paid to is a gratuitous insult, that you would not have the courtesy to repeat to his face, and therefore unworthy of comment.
But perhaps you ought to tell us who you are working for, if you want to go down that road.
>I am curious as to why you hold to this
>belief against the weight of evidence. [JT]
I'm not sure what 'belief' it is that I am supposed to hold. I am sceptical about a body of supposedly scientific research that has been generated under conditions of extreme politicisation. And I find that the IPCC's model of global warming has already been disproven in fact. Whether a better model can be constructed, is not something I am in a position to judge, as yet.
I appreciate that many on this list hold the view that global warming is something decided by the IPCC, but I tend to think it either is, or is not a process in the world. -- James Heartfield