NOTE: Since WUWT has the broadest reach of any climate blog and is essentially a “publication of record”, I have been asked to carry this opinion piece by the Heartland Institute. I have not received any compensation directly or indirectly for publishing this rebuttal. – Anthony Watts
By Joseph L. Bast, Director, Heartland Institute
On May 3, Jeffrey Sachs, a Columbia University professor and “special adviser” to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, wrote a commentary condemning global warming “deniers” that appeared on a Catholic website called Pewsitter. Since he takes aim specifically at The Heartland Institute, a reply seems to be in order.
Sachs wrote about an event convened by Pope Francis on global warming and sustainability at the Vatican in Rome the prior week. Observing that only alarmists and advocates of population control – most notably, Jeffrey Sachs – were on the program, I decided Heartland should send some real scientists and other experts to Rome to provide a different opinion. Our delegation to Rome consisted of the following individuals, all of them willing to travel a great distance on short notice and participate without honoraria:
- E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., national spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
- Hal Doiron, former NASA Skylab and Space Shuttle engineer
- Richard Keen, Ph.D., meteorology instructor at the University of Colorado
- Christopher Monckton, chief policy advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI)
- Marc Morano, executive editor and chief correspondent, ClimateDepot.com
- Tom Sheahen, Ph.D., vice chairman of the Board of Directors of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
- Elizabeth Yore, J.D., former general counsel at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Virginia
Jim Lakely and Keely Drukala, Heartland’s director and deputy director of communications, respectively, traveled to Rome as well and managed the complicated and last-minute logistics of the trip.
We created a webpage at https://www.heartland.org/Vatican-Environment-Workshop where we posted news releases and opinion-editorials expressing our concern that the pope was being misinformed and offering links to more reliable scientific research and commentary on Christian views toward the environment. Following the event and safe return home of our delegation, we posted all the presentations and video from the event on the website.
Our presence generated extensive worldwide press attention. We were able to reach millions of people with our simple message that “climate change is not a crisis.”
The Vatican and United Nations seemed shocked that anyone would criticize their bias or the lack of scientific credentials of their speakers. Peter Raven, a speaker at the summit, devoted several minutes of his remarks to commenting on our presence, and now Sachs’ essay appears to be part of the UN’s effort at damage control.
Sachs did not attend our press conference or any of the presentations our experts made the following day. To our knowledge, none of the persons scheduled to speak at the “summit” chose to attend our public events. Nevertheless, Sachs writes: “the libertarian Heartland Institute, supported over the years by the Koch brothers, mounted a fruitless protest outside of St Peter’s Square.”
The Heartland Institute has received just $25,000 from a single organization, a charitable foundation, affiliated with “the Koch brothers” during the past 15 years. Our annual budget is approximately $7 million. Even that small gift was earmarked for our work on health care reform, not global warming. Why does Sachs mention “the Koch brothers” unless his intention is to smear an independent organization by falsely implying a much larger or somehow improper level of support from some singularly unpopular billionaires?
Our press conference and seminar were not a “protest.” We weren’t on the street waving signs or shouting slogans. Our speakers were highly qualified and their writing and speaking relating to the pope and the Catholic Church were respectful and focused narrowly on the science, economics, and politics of climate change.
The dishonesty in Sachs’ reference to The Heartland Institute would be startling, coming from a person of Sachs’ stature, if this sort of misrepresentation of facts weren’t so common in the debate over climate change. President Barack Obama sets the tone, comparing global warming realists to members of the “flat earth society” and rather ominously calling on his supporters to “hold climate change deniers’ feet to the fire.”
In fact, those who say global warming is a man-made crisis gave up arguing the science and economics behind their campaign long ago. They now rely only on exaggeration, lies, and ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees with them.
Sachs is correct about one thing: The Heartland Institute is indeed a libertarian organization. We are devoted to discovering, developing, and promoting free-market solutions to social and economic issues. We make it very clear on our website and in interviews that it was this perspective that led us to examine the science behind the global warming scare. That examination led us to become (in the words of The Economist) “the world’s most prominent think tank supporting skepticism of man-made climate change.”
Sachs says some “free-market conservatives … have followed their ideology to the point of denying well-established science.” He seems blind to the possibilities that the science is not “well-established” or that his fellow socialists and “progressives” have themselves fallen prey to this malady. What else explains their refusal to admit there has been no warming for more than 18 years, that real data show no increase in extreme weather events, and that the benefits of using fossil fuels outweigh the costs, by orders of magnitude, even including the vastly inflated costs attributed to climate change that might occur centuries from now?
Sachs has had a long and distinguished career as an academic and in various government agencies, but on this issue he is letting his liberal ideology cloud his judgment. His short essay reveals a disturbing lack of knowledge about climate science and compassion toward the billions of people in the world who will be harmed by the UN’s plans to make energy more expensive and less reliable.
Sachs ends his essay with a call to people of all faiths to “fulfill our moral responsibilities to humanity and to the future of Earth.” That responsibility starts with truth-telling. Sachs and his colleagues on the left haven’t reached the starting line yet.
# # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
probably this is a good place to ask.
I’m not very good at understanding the physics and have a problem understanding why the atmosphere is “thinner” at altitude.
If I waft my hand about I feel it brushing against something which I think is little bits of things that are there, with the reality of space between them. I imagine that there are molecules bouncing about against each other and generally being pulled towards the center of the Earth by gravity until they bump into something that they cannot get past. I do not understand why the molecules are further apart at altitude and not pulled to a constant density by gravity.
Dear Zemlik
measures depth (positive down). This means that if you go a small distance 
down in any fluid the pressure increases by a small amount 
where 
is the fluid density and 
is the gravitational acceleration. This is the differential foundation of both Archimedes’ Principle and Pascal’s Principle, two important laws of fluids near the surface of the Earth.
is a small change in pressure applied to a chunk of the fluid of volume 
. Increasing the pressure decreases the volume by a small amount 
(the minus sign means decreases). The 
is a characteristic (near) constant of the material in question called the “bulk modulus”.
Ultimately you are asking about how and why fluids are compressible, combined with asking about something called Archimedes’ Principle — why and how things float or are supported by a surrounding fluid in a gravitational field. You can read about it in reasonable detail in many physics textbooks. So here are the two things you need to know to understand it:
A) The pressure in a fluid varies with depth like:
where
B) The equation:
describes how the volume of a chunk of the fluid changes when one changes the pressure. In this equation,
If you put these two equations together, then you must conclude that as you descend into any fluid:
a) the pressure increases;
b) the volume occupied by a given amount of the fluid (counted in terms of say a given number of molecules) decreases;
c) which means that the density increases.
You can see some of the algebra involved for air in my online (free) physics textbook here:
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Class/intro_physics_1_review.php
(see the chapter on Fluids, near the beginning, although I don’t look directly at density per se).
Note that different fluids have strikingly different compressibilities (as determined by their bulk modulus). Air is quite compressible — you can pump lots and lots of air into a scuba tank, increasing the density of the air in the tank by a factor of around a hundred and making the tank weigh more and more even though it still only contains “air”– scuba divers have to compensate for this with weights or they would start to float (no longer be negative-neutral in buoyancy) as they breathe, consuming the air in their tanks and breathing it out into the water. Water, on the other hand, is highly incompressible, so that water at the bottom of the deep ocean some ten kilometers down where the pressure is order of 1000 atmospheres is only about 5% denser than water at the surface.
Hope this helps. You can think of it this way. Imagine that you have a very long spring that is not tightly coiled in equilibrium that has a certain mass per unit length of the spring wire. If you set it up vertically, it will compress in such a way that at any given height the compression supports the weight of all of the spring above that height. At the top of the spring, it is basically uncompressed. But at the bottom of the spring, the coils are squeezed together enough so that the restoring force supports the weight of all of the spring above that point. The coils there are closer together, so the density (mass per unit length) is greater there than at the top of the uncompressed spring. This is actually a remarkably good analogy for what happens in the atmosphere with a very light but very long and somewhat weak spring, and you can think of the ocean as being a much heavier but much, much stronger spring (one so strong that it doesn’t compress much to support the entire weight to the surface, even though that weight is substantial).
rgb
Oh, and I forgot to post this link:
in the article is what I (and many physics books) call 
. Note that you can convert the equation above to one for the density directly by multiplying and dividing by the mass in volume 
:
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulk_modulus
as well. The
where there is no minus sign now because decreasing the volume as one increases the pressure increases the density
rgb
thank you for your considered response.
I think what I am struggling with is what happens at the top of the atmosphere.
If I remove everything from a flask and then put in 2 molecules of CO2 I image that the 2 molecules will end up on the bottom of the flask because of gravity ?
In which event at the top of the atmosphere what molecules that are there should be drawn down by gravity to establish a happy density ( like water in a lake ).
zemlik,
Have you ever gone swimming in a pool? If you go deep into the pool you will notice your ears paining a bit. This is due to increased pressure as you go deeper into the pool.
The atmosphere is a fluid like water in the pool. As you go deeper, the pressure increases.
Since the atmosphere is a gas and has weight (still a fluid as well) increased pressure causes the air molecule to gather closer together. Rgbatduke posted some very relevant equations and they are correct, but they use calculus, which may muddle you up.
Thank you Heartland. Your clear annunciation of a scientific counter-point to the UN eco-marxist delusion of the moment may provide the adherents of political correctness with a urgently required enema in reality. Political correctness has spawned a runaway institutional totalitarianism. Catholic alignment is nothing new with such phenomenon.
Your presence was more than a impediment. It was a clarion call and a sign to the wider landscape that rejection of religiously imbued UN eco-marxist precautionism, hell bent on global governance, is in fact as evil and scientifically fraudulent as it sounds.
“climate change is not a crisis.”
If it starts getting colder it will be.
youbetcha!
Jeffrey D. Sachs is the Director of The Earth Institute, Quetelet Professor of Sustainable Development, and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia. He is also Special Advisor to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. From 2002 to 2006, he was Director of the UN Millennium Project and Special Advisor to former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan on the Millennium Development Goals.
“The Earth Institute has been deeply and centrally involved for more than a decade with the global challenge of man-made climate change, and member institutions of the Earth Institute – including the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, for longer than that.”
Members of the external advisory board include George Soros and Rajendra Pachauri, former IPCC chairman. Soros has funded Sachs via his Open Society Institute. Pachauri is/was also a member of the Earth Institute’s Commission on Education for International Development Professionals and on the board of their International Research Institute for Climate and Society. Pachauri and Sachs are/were also co-chairs of the Indian Commission on Sustainable Development.
In 2009, Sachs addressed the annual conference of the Party of European Socialists:
He described the “profound honour “ of addressing the Party of European Socialists and said they were heirs and leaders of the most successful economic and political system in the world, Social Democracy. Social equity, environmental sustainability and fiscal re-distribution were the successful elements, in marked contrast to the US whose taxes were too low and where the poor were ignored.
He asked for PES leadership “for the sake of the world” on social principles, financial regulation and solidarity with the poor. In advance of Copenhagen, he claimed that millions were suffering because of drought caused by western induced climate change and a carbon levy was needed.
He singled out the US as the biggest emitter of CO2 per capita and said it must spend more to save the planet. He promoted the UN Millennium Development Goals and the global target of 0.7% of GDP to fund development. He wants a carbon tax and a financial transactions tax, a global health fund, a global education fund and a global climate fund.
In fact he wants everything that the UN, the OECD, Socialist International, George Soros, Rajendra Pachauri, Lord Nicholas Stern, Barack Obama, environmental NGO’s, the Democrats and some Republicans want. He asked the PES to make
Members of the external advisory board include George Soros and Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman.
He described the “profound honour “ of addressing the Party of European Socialists and said they were heirs and leaders of the most successful economic and political system in the world, Social Democracy. Social equity, environmental sustainability and fiscal re-distribution were the successful elements, in marked contrast to the US whose taxes were too low.
He wants a carbon tax and a financial transactions tax, a global health fund, a global education fund and a global climate fund.
In fact he wants everything that the UN, the OECD, Socialist International, George Soros, Rajendra Pachauri, Lord Nicholas Stern, Barack Obama, environmental NGO’s, the Democrats and some Republicans want.
He asked the PES to make common cause with Progressives in the US and let them share their wisdom and thanked them for their leadership.
Is there anything Sachs didn’t get wrong? Socialism is responsible for the world’s worst environmental disasters. It has precluded the market forces that might have lifted so many out of crushing poverty. The “social equity” of socialism is always at the lowest common denominator, tearing down those who build up.
I’m confused 🙁
“The Heartland Institute is sending a team of climate scientists to Rome next week to inform Pope Francis of the truth about climate science…..”
https://www.heartland.org/press-releases/2015/04/24/heartland-institute-heads-rome-advise-pope-francis-climate-policy
The legitimate question asked here in the Village was who these might be. Now we have the answer, but the description of these persons has (of necessity) morphed before our eyes to “real scientists and other Experts”
What part about the team being sent on short notice and without honoraria did you not understand?
I didn’t see questions about short notice nor honoraria in VI’s post, only a question about the scientific credentials of the team as it relates to climate science.
Who exactly are these ‘Climate Scientists’ sent to Rome??
Chris, not only are the “scientific credentials” of the team a red herring on your part, but you “saw” what you wanted to see. Typical troll tactics.
“I’m confused.”
Hey Idiot… you’re confusing us as well, because you actually made a true statement (and we’re wondering- is that really you?)
The Cathedral is fighting back on two fronts now – Climate Change ‘Denial’ and Gamergate. But the Dark Renaissance is gaining momentum.
“>>> Why does Sachs mention “the Koch brothers” unless his intention is to smear an independent organization by falsely implying a much larger or somehow improper level of support from some singularly unpopular billionaires? <<<"
Unpopular billionaires? Koch Bros. are certainly popular with me. In my books the "unpopular billionaires" are Soros, Steyer and anybody else who gives money to Greenpeace.
Yes, money is magic, isn’t it? Think about it.
“Right-wing” money is evil and can influence people who think one way to think another.
“Left-wing” money is pure and only does good.
And “government money” is the absolute purest of the pure, as it, by its very nature, is the people’s money, and the people are never wrong.
Any comments/ideas on the conservative win in England? One would think that they actually may clamp down on the alarmists left in the conservative camp?
No one here or elsewhere (ie skeptics) seems to have have done any effective work to convince the Conservatives in England that AGW is a total scam. D Cameroon seems to be quite an intelligent fellow who could easily be convinced just showing him the satellite/ice data. Obviously no one has showed it to him.
yes, although I’m sure Nigel is convinced AGW is a scam, he didn’t win. 12% of the vote and one voice in Westminster meanwhile the Limpdems are filling the HoL.
Eliza –
Will be interesting to see. Cameron himself is not a conviction politician, he merely uses principles as an advertising ploy for himself. He’s a marketing man after all. That’s his trade. He happens to be conservative but I don’t think he’s what you’d call a conservative in the USA meaning of the word.
He does seem to have back-tracked a bit on his 2010 promise to make his administration the greenest ever – “vote blue, go green” he’d say – but his government has relied for 5 years upon a coalition with the LIbDems, for whom renewable energy and carbon taxes are an article of faith, and any suggestion that the CAGW thing might be wrong wouldn’t have gone down very well. And he did quite rapidly rid himself of an excellent and practical Minister for Environment – Owen Paterson – who began to depart from the script. But this election means that he can rule without the LibDems who were slaughtered at the polls yesterday, most of their leaders being defeated, including the miserable Energy Secretary, ‘Windmill Ed’ Davey.
I think it’s possible Cameron will come out in opposition to CAGW, but only when he’s reasonably sure that’s going to be the winning side, and then he’d be happy to wear his Damascene conversion as a badge of honour. He won’t be leading us over the top of the trenches anytime soon, that’s for sure. Anyway, he’ll be preoccupied for the next year or so with fiddling the EU referendum so that we stay in (whilst all the time presenting himself as standing up for the UK in the debate) – and openly expressing doubts about the CAGW ‘consensus’ won’t suit his purpose.
There’s a new thread devoted to the UK election. Maybe we should go there..
I was initially concerned with including E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D. of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation which while their suspension of science is limited to creationism, any suspension of science due to personal faith based beliefs is not a good rebuttal to AGW and it’s attendant prophesy of Doom.
Then I realized the whole idea of the opinion of Pope Francis being any way relevant to global warming issues completely exposes that AGW is is not primarily a scientific endeavor. If your science work products needs the Pope to endorse it then your scientific approach is deeply flawed.
I recently watched a debate between Craig a creationist and Krauss a physicist. The moderator who was clueless as to what moderating a debate means interjected the idea that religion and science could work more closely together and there is no need for a hard line of separation. Krauss almost had a conniption fit at the thought. I was expecting the moderator to next propose the coming together of religion and government. A complete idiot.
Like the idiocy of a society that needs a Pope weighing in to validate scientific findings.
Yeah, as a physicist I have conniption fits too. But really, there is no need for a hard line of separation. All that the world needs is to stop engaging in wishful thinking, stop believing in magic, and start applying the same, logical, defensible standard of plausible truth — to believe the most what they can doubt the least, given the entire consistent network of evidence supported beliefs that have survived the doubt test — to all propositions.
That’s why Craig is wrong. It isn’t that he “couldn’t” be right. Hell, I “could” be a power unit in The Matrix. The visible Universe “could” be a giant simulation in a massive multiplayer online role playing game (and students at MIT, ever resourceful, have tried to think up ways to test whether or not this is true). That’s pretty much what people of any religion believe — that this isn’t the “real” world, this is a transient material plane that is either open illusion (e.g. Hindu) or else a bounded creation (Abrahamic) that we pass through en route to a permanent reality “elsewhere”, with our promotion contingent on “winning” the game in the meantime by doing useful things like believing the right things!
But religious people never quite understand that they are perfect rational and skeptical of every world religion past present or future but one — their own. To paraphrase scripture, they need to work on the splinter in their own eye before they can see that in their brother’s.
A lot of stuff presented on this blog is just as religious. Some “deniers” really are deniers — they don’t understand the facts or the physics or the evidence and — most importantly — they aren’t willing to entertain the possibility that they could be wrong. It is that humility that truly differentiates a scientist from a believer. To physicists it comes pretty naturally, because the story of physics is the story of enormous, paradigm-shifting empirically supported revolutions where entire functional systems are uprooted and replaced just because they aren’t quite consistent with some observations even though they work really well with a whole world of other observations. In all of the hard sciences this is true to at least some extent. It should be true in all academic disciplines including the non-sciences; even the arts are subject to the need for some sort of “validation” to separate the mud-marks made by my dog on my back door window as she taps to be let back in from my grandson’s very similar finger painting from the work of an abstract impressionist that at first glance shares a number of features with the two.
rgb
“But religious people never quite understand that they are perfect rational and skeptical of every world religion past present or future but one — their own. To paraphrase scripture, they need to work on the splinter in their own eye before they can see that in their brother’s.”
I do wonder when you’ll begin to take your own advice.
Faith and reason are perfectly compatible. The notion that scientists can’t be religious and vise versa is absurd and defies 1000’s of examples otherwise. Just let it go.
Proof that CO2 has no significant effect on climate and identification of the two factors that do (95% correlation since before 1900) are disclosed at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com
Is Pope Francis astute enough to recognize that Climatism has become the leading sect of Environmentalism and a de facto religious movement? In which case, could he be attempting to head off the Enviros at the pass and bring them into the fold as Catholics? The Enviros would certainly feel at home with the persecutors of Copernicus, Galileo, and Bruno.
Or is Pope Francis just being played for a sucker by the Enviros, who see him as nothing but a pathetic relic?
/Mr Lynn
LE Joiner.
The Church did not persecute Copernicus, who was a cleric of the catholic Church. They endorsed Copernican heliocentricity published in 1585 with Pope Paul III’s blessing. They did so up until 1633 when Galileo, morphed into a theologian & claimed that the Book of Joshua was wrong (which it isn’t). When asked if he could prove that the sun is fixed and the planets revolved around the fixed sun in circular orbits, Galileo admitted he could not prove it….because he 1) was wrong, and 2) did not have the technology. The sun is not fixed, and the orbits are elliptical. Despite Galileo’s incompetence at proving Copernican heliocentricity, the Church never condemned it. As for Bruni, secular authorities burned him, and had he was a larger than life bullsh1tting fabricating liar of epic proportions, a hero to morons.
You don’t know a shred of history. Then you make wise cracks using your ignorance as a shield. Some shield! Time to open a book.
Paul Westhaver: You are right; my knowledge of history is in need of improvement. But the Church has had the reputation for centuries of resistance to, and persecution of, science. Instead of answering my questions, you deflected them.
Oh, and if Joshua was right, the Earth stopped turning and the Sun stood still for a day. True?
/Mr Lynn
Ignoramuses and antagonists of the church has advanced that the church “had the reputation for centuries of resistance to, and persecution of, science.” Just like you are repeating now, utterly ignorant of science, the history of science and the church, and the history of the church. Rarely have I encountered someone so willing to be publicly ignorant of a subject and intractable obstinate about proving his hostile ignorance.
Gregor Mendel, a Catholic Monk invented the field of genetics.
Fr Georges Henri Lemaitre PhD, a priest, invented the Big Bang.
Roger Bacon, a Catholic monk is attributed with inventing the modern scientific method in his Opus Majus.
etc etc… the list is long…and you should know that.
You are a bore.
My goodness! I guess my innocent (if mischievous) questions struck a nerve! Do you think the current Pope has any clue about climatology? Did he receive the embassy from the Heritage Foundation with open arms, and cancel his plan to jump on the UN “climate change” train?
I’ll let others decide which one of us is the bore.
/Mr Lynn
P. Westhaver: “[The Church] endorsed Copernican heliocentricity published in 1585 with Pope Paul III’s blessing.”
Copernicus died in 1543. De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was published shortly before his death.
A second edition was published in 1566, but I find no reference to an endorsement or blessing by Pope Paul III.
From Glasgow University discussion of De Revolutionibus first edition:
“Interestingly, although apparently contradicting the Bible, De Revolutionibus avoided serious censorship until 1616, seventy three years after first publication, when it was placed on the Catholic Church’s Index of Prohibited Books.”
re the banning of the book by Copernicus, I believe, but have to check, that it was banned from 1616 until 1622…Somebody revised 9 sentences an then it was no longer banned around 1622 ish.
Nutso fast,
You are corerct about the date. I mistyped it. Thanks. (key point was that it was prior to Galileo’s publication in 1632)
Copernicus initially wrote Pope Paul III explaining why his was hesitating in publishing the Book which was published only in part. His reasoning for contacting the Pope was based on concern that he would be mis understood and he was reassuring the Pope that his theory was not meant to contradict doctrine This was during tumultuous times when protestant puritans were discarding everything (including science) that did not come from scripture.
http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/dedication.html
This is a link to the translation of the letter from Copernicus to Pope Paul III I believe a copy of the letter and a book is held by a family in Europe.. I forget where off hand.
The Pope instructed Bishop Giese of Culm to collect the documents for publication and Rheitcus did so for Copernicus and eventually published them to Pope Paul III in 1542 in part.
The Book by Copernicus was not originally banned from publication. It was only after Galileo published his work, pointing to Copernicus and using both works to show an error in Joshua. The exact part of Joshua says [that the sun passes in its path across the sky] while Galileo said that the sun was fixed. Since Galileo was unable to prove his theory, yet many of the ecclesiastical scholars accepted heliocentrism, they refused to condemn it. Rather they simply “shelved it”. Publishing in the vernacular Galileo said that scripture may be wrong and the public were scandalized. Galileo had at that point violated his contract and also failed to prove his work, while assuming theological teaching authority.
The Church has, does, and will in the future, ban books. Some are just plain wrong. Google does it, Facebook does it….. every entity practices censorship. No surprise there.
Aware of the science and scripture Cardinal Bellermine wrote to Foscarini: during the second trial…
“I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.”
Mr. Watts, many thanks for posting this! It is much appreciated.
Regards,
Daniel
Joe, it was a mistake to accuse Sachs of “dishonesty” and “lies”. The factual mistakes could be entirely due to carelessness, and you should charitably assume this.
No. That assumption is proved false by the fact that Sachs worked up a press release, printed a press release and staged a photo-op championing these words, these lies – but refused to even listen to the opposition’s point! – to promote his deliberate CAGW anti-people, pro-wealth, pro-power and money, pro-global government agenda propaganda. Whose deliberate goal is to kill people and make worse their lives.
the science is not “well-established”
This link has some local addressing in it.
“… fulfill our moral responsibilities to humanity and to the future of Earth.” A totally empty phrase that could have been used by Hitler or Lenin. On the other side I feel that I am fulfilling my “moral responsibilities to humanity and to the future of the earth” by opposing the unsubstantiated claims contained in AGW. On the third side it is similar to the Baltimore mob’s cry for justice when they wouldn’t recognize justice if they tripped over it in the street.
UNEP, Dec.2, 2014, Waterloo, ON
“CIGI and UNEP To Explore Ways To Support a Sustainable, Green Economy”
Check out where the action is taking place to support the “green” global economy. It isn’t as far away as one would think that this is taking place.
http://www.unep.org/inquiry/News/BlogsArticles/CIGIandUNEPtoexplorewaystosupportasustain/tabid/794627/Default.aspx
mod: OK with me. Regards – Hans
The rolling stones, adressing the pope:
I want you back again
I want your love again
I know you find it hard to reason with me
But this time it’s different, darling you’ll see
You gotta tell me you’re coming back to me
You gotta tell me you’re coming back to me
You gotta tell me you’re coming back to me
You gotta tell me you’re coming back to me
____
Tell me. About religion. Hans