Originally posted by dratts: I will admit that I haven't researched deeply.
I've been following this stuff for several years now. The first post in this thread was in June of 2008. I've seen more than once instance of data that was severely dicked with to support a particular conclusion. Go back a few pages and read what I've posted.
Originally posted by dratts: When I research this topic it comes up overwhelmingly supported by science that climate change is directly affected by co2 emissions. 75% of scientists believe that it is increased by emissions. 99% of climate scientists believe that it is increased by emissions. Corporations will not concede. I'm not sure, but I think that they won't concede because it hits their profit margins in a bad way. There are 1% of climate scientists who are not sure so if your agenda is to deny climate change influenced by humans, there is your 1% that although they won't say there is no connection, they are not sure. I'm a 99%er in more than one way. Why would any intelligent person choose a 1% opinion to argue against a 99% opinion. Those are not the best odds and the repercussions are enormous if we pick the wrong side of this argument. I can live through anything that comes from this, but it would be morally wrong for me to ignore it because it was inconvenient for me. No other species has ever been able to cause this.
Does this pass for intelligent dialogue among your kind? Doesn't where I come from, because some of us learned to separate fact from fiction long ago.
You might start by listing legitimate references to all the heavy "research" you have done. (I foresee a problem in your future)(Inasmuch as actually documenting total BS poses a few, shall we say, "technical" problems). Made up "statistics" that do not, and cannot, bear a relation to reality, don't carry a lot of weight.
You might want to look into starting a new religion, as you've certainly got the perspective for it: "OH, MY, Look at what could happen if everyone does not agree with me!!!!!!" "You will all be doomed if you do not agree with me!" "If you agree with me, you shall all be saved!" (Sound familiar?)
Otherwise, a provable truth, rather than An Inconvenient Fiction, would be a good starting place for joining this, or any, discussion.
When I research this topic it comes up overwhelmingly supported by science that climate change is directly affected by co2 emissions. 75% of scientists believe that it is increased by emissions. 99% of climate scientists believe that it is increased by emissions. Corporations will not concede. I'm not sure, but I think that they won't concede because it hits their profit margins in a bad way. There are 1% of climate scientists who are not sure so if your agenda is to deny climate change influenced by humans, there is your 1% that although they won't say there is no connection, they are not sure. I'm a 99%er in more than one way. Why would any intelligent person choose a 1% opinion to argue against a 99% opinion. Those are not the best odds and the repercussions are enormous if we pick the wrong side of this argument. I can live through anything that comes from this, but it would be morally wrong for me to ignore it because it was inconvenient for me. No other species has ever been able to cause this. Human beings are a parasite on the planet capable of causing irreparable damage like no other and easily potentially fatal to this planet. We can do better!
If you follow all the hard evidence that is contained in the links posted on this thread, you will see that regurgitating the hogwash from Al Gore, David Suzuki, and the IPCC "scientists" just doesn't fly any more.
The hard evidence points to the facts that all the errant and extreme predictions made by East Anglia in its now discounted fraudulent misrepresentations, the IPCC's predicitions and Al Gore's rants have proven to be alarmist fiction. They have in fact not happened as foretold. Example, the predicted flooding of island nations, and extreme hurricane activity. It just hasn't happened.
Moreover the earth's mean temperature has fluctuated between normal limits and is not extraordinary in any way.
This year, my part of the continent has had a mild winter so far, due to air moving up from the Gulf of Mexico. Most of the world has a very normal winter. Best read up before you post opinions. FYI
OK guys, I knew from the thread topic that I would run into resistance and so I didn't even read it and only posted recently. I know that I won't change Anyones mind on this thread. I haven't cherry picked my resources though like I'm accused of. I understand corporations whose profit line will be compromised refusing to accept scientific consensus. That's all you have to do. Just google scientific consensus on climate change. Then if it doesn't agree with your opinions, just ignore science. No Need to reply to this post if you want a reaction from me, I already know what your hard formed opinions are. You are clinging to a 1% of doubt, rather than a 99% scientific consensus. Religion? Sorry, I base my opinions on proof raher than blind faith.
Originally posted by dratts Human beings are a parasite on the planet capable of causing irreparable damage like no other and easily potentially fatal to this planet.
Just what you are implying we should do?
quote
Originally posted by dratts OK guys, I knew from the thread topic that I would run into resistance and so I didn't even read it and only posted recently.
Wouldn't it have been better if you read the thread before posting an uninformed opinion?
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 12-31-2011).]
Thanks fiero bear, you don't have to respond. I was only posting an opinion. I never thought for a second that any persons who think that climate change is a hoax would agree with me or be interested in my opinion. Thanks for polite though. Polite counts.
Thanks fiero bear, you don't have to respond. I was only posting an opinion. I never thought for a second that any persons who think that climate change is a hoax would agree with me or be interested in my opinion. Thanks for polite though. Polite counts.
No problem.
I was planning to post this anyway, one of the latest discoveries from Climategate 2.0. You might find it interesting, at least something worth of consideration. It is a discussion about how tree ring proxies aren't working out very well as indicators of temperature. Tree rings were a MAJOR component to the warmists' supposed proof of human-caused warming.
1. There are few tree-core series that extend beyond the early 1980s. This is because many of the sites we're using were cored before the early 1980s. So most tree-ring records just don't exist post 1980. [Phil Jones] ... If you look at the figure in the attached article in Science by Briffa and Osborn, you will note that tree-ring temperature reconstructions are flat from 1950 onward. I asked Mike Mann about this discrepancy at a meeting recently, and he said he didn't have an explanation. It sounded like it is an embarrassment to the tree ring community that their indicator does not seem to be responding to the pronounced warming of the past 50 years. Ed Cook of the Lamont Tree-Ring Lab tells me that there is some speculation that stratospheric ozone depletion may have affected the trees, in which case the pre-1950 record is OK. But alternatively, he says it is possible that the trees have exceeded the linear part of their temperature-sensitive range, and they no longer are stimulated by temperature. In this case there is trouble for the paleo record. Kieth Briffa first documented this late 20th century loss of response.
Personally, I think that the tree ring records should be able to reproduce the instrumental record, as a first test of the validity of this proxy. To me it casts doubt on the integrity of this proxy that it fails this test.
There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.
Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article: A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.
Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.
Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.
A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.
If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.
Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
*
Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
By David Rose
Last updated at 5:38 AM on 29th January 2012
* Comments (680) * Share * o o o
The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. A painting, dated 1684, by Abraham Hondius depicts one of many frost fairs on the River Thames during the mini ice age
A painting, dated 1684, by Abraham Hondius depicts one of many frost fairs on the River Thames during the mini ice age
Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.
Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.
We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.
Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.
More...
* Hotter summers 'may kill 5,900 every year', warns first national risk assessment of climate change * Winter bites back: Britain braced for first cold snap of year as ice and snow transform countryside in scenes of breathtaking beauty * What are the mysterious blue balls that fell from the sky over Bournemouth?
According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.
However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid. The world average temperature from 1997 to 2012
Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’
These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.
‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’
He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.
CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998. World solar activity cycles from 1749 to 2040
So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.
‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.
Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.
‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.
He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.
‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’. Four hundred years of sunspot observations
She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .
Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.
The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.
‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’
Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.
‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’
Scientists Blast ‘Incontrovertible’ Global Warming Claims
An editorial signed by 16 prominent scientists in the Wall Street Journal takes sharp issue with calls for drastic action against global warming, asserting that the threat is far from “incontrovertible” as alarmists claim.
“A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about ‘global warming,’” the article states.
“Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.”
The scientists point to Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, who resigned from the American Physical Society in September due to the organization’s position that the evidence for global warming is “incontrovertible” and the threat requires “mitigating actions” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The 16 scientists — including Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences at MIT, and William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton — say in the Journal piece: “In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the ‘pollutant’ carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever.
“The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.”
The “most inconvenient” fact cited by the scientists is the lack of global warming over the past 10 years.
Also, in the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change began issuing projections, warming has consistently been less than predicted.
This suggests that “computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2,” the Op-Ed article states.
Why then does the call for action against global warming persist? The scientists say: Follow the money.
“Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow,” they declare.
“Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet.”
They conclude: “Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world's economy.
“Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of ‘incontrovertible’ evidence.”
Other scientists who signed the editorial include aerospace engineer Burt Rutan, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Michael Kelly, professor of technology at the University of Cambridge; and Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism at Rockefeller University.
P.S.: Temperatures in some areas in Europe on Thursday sank to minus 26.5 F. Parts of the Black Sea froze near the Romanian coastline and rare snow fell on Croatian islands in the Adriatic Sea.
How come us old uneducated farts knew this all along. You mean you need a degree to figure out that Al Gore is a huckster, that the radical claims of increase hurricane activity and drowning islands was just hoo-haa?
What I am happy about is that so many scientists have finally screwed up the courage to hoist the IPCC on its own petard.
How come us old uneducated farts knew this all along. You mean you need a degree to figure out that Al Gore is a huckster, that the radical claims of increase hurricane activity and drowning islands was just hoo-haa?
What I am happy about is that so many scientists have finally screwed up the courage to hoist the IPCC on its own petard.
Arn
Lol, I was once told on this forum, about this topic, that they would rather listen to the people with the Phd.
At a closed-door retreat in a Long Island mansion late last October, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and his topmost aides brainstormed about how the global organization could benefit from a "unique opportunity" to reshape the world, starting with the Rio + 20 Summit on Sustainable Development, which takes place in Brazil in June. A copy of the confidential minutes of the meeting was obtained by Fox News. According to that document, the 29-member group, known as the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination (CEB), discussed bold ambitions that stretch for years beyond the Rio conclave to consolidate a radical new global green economy, promote a spectrum of sweeping new social policies and build an even more important role for U.N. institutions “ to manage the process of globalization better.”
At the same time, the gathering acknowledged that their ambitions were on extremely shaky ground, starting with the fact that, as Ban’s chief organizer for the Rio gathering put it, “there was still no agreement on the definition of the green economy, the main theme of the [Rio] conference.” But according to the minutes, that did not seem to restrain the group’s ambitions. Its members see Rio as the springboard for consolidation of an expanding U.N. agenda for years ahead, driven by still more U.N.-sponsored global summits that would, as one participant put it, “ensure that the U.N. connected with the roots of the current level of global discontent.” Click here for the minutes of the retreat. Among other things, the CEB heard Ban’s top organizer, a U.N. Under Secretary General from China named Sha Zukang, declare that the wish list for the Rio + 20 meeting, already being touted as a landmark environmental conclave on the issue of “global environmental governance,” included making it:
“the catalyst” for solidifying a global economic, social and political agenda, built around “green economy” goals
a means to “reorient public and private decision-making” to make the world’s poorest people the new economy’s “main beneficiaries,”
a method of also reorienting national decision-making in countries around the world to put the new agenda “at the heart of national ministries,”
the occasion to create new bodies, like a U.N. Sustainable Development Council, similar to the U.N. Human Rights Council, to help guide the global process further in the years ahead, or give additional responsibilities to the U.N. Environmental Program (UNEP), the world body’s chief environmental agency..
Other participants chimed in with additional ideas, including the notion from one key organizer that “the U.N. in Rio should be the voice of the planet and its people.” At the same time, conference organizer Sha noted, “2012 was not the best year” for driving new environmental bargains, due to the global financial crisis walloping the world’s rich economies, a prevalent “atmosphere of general trust deficit” between the world’s rich and developing countries and that many countries (notably including the U.S.) were holding national elections that left their future policies up in the air. Those realities had already stymied the latest attempt to forge a multi-trillion-dollar bargain to transfer wealth from rich nations to poor ones in the name of controlling “climate change,” at a meeting last December in Durban, South Africa. As one of the participants, Achim Steiner, head of the UNEP, put it, according to the minutes: “In framing its role and mission, the U.N. not only had the preoccupations of the financial and economic crisis, but also had to grapple with the phenomenon of a geo-economically transformed world that was not yet geopolitically articulated.” Translation: One of the U.N.’s challenges is that the world had not been globally reorganized in political terms -- yet -- to the same extent that it had been globally reorganized in economic terms. But in general, the members of the CEB saw that as an opportunity for the world organization, which they clearly hoped to make central to that global re-articulation. Citing a CEB high-level committee report entitled Moving towards a fairer, greener, and more sustainable globalization, a top CEB staffer, Elliot Harris, told the gathering that the issue was not to reverse globalization, “but rather to harness it to generate better outcomes.” Among other things, the clearly left-leaning report underlined that “inequity” was the “single greatest challenge and threat” to the world, and that “any new approach needed to address the root causes of the imbalances,” which the report associated with the “liberalization of trade and finance.” Among the “opportunities” that the current global crisis had provided, Harris said, was “a renewed recognition of the role of the State,” and “an appreciation of the value of collective and coordinated action at the global level.” When it came to global issues, the U.N. chieftains were encouraged to think well beyond the environment and the international economy into a wide variety of social spheres, from human rights to health and education, where there was a “need for a global framework and national frameworks” for the development of new policies. The national policies “should be derived from the core values and norms that the U.N. system embodied, to ensure coherence between national level and global goals and aspirations” For some of those present at the gathering, those values seemed to include a heavy reliance on populist methods to push the U.N.’s Rio message to a global audience, bypassing member governments along the way. Rio conference coordinator Brice Lalonde (a onetime Green Party candidate for the French presidency), according to the minutes “stressed that Rio + 20 was not a routine conference but one of few opportunities to hold a real People’s Conference.” He informed Board members, intriguingly, that “the U.S. Government was working on the virtual conference angle,” the document reported. (In fact, on Feb. 2-4, 2012, U.S. State Department, EPA and other officials took part in a conference at Stanford University, entitled Rio + 2.0, which examined, among other things, ways that the latest “connection technology”—from Facebook to mobile phones—could be used in furthering global sustainable development.) Lalonde added that “a conceptual move was also needed toward much more redistribution and much more equity around the world,,i.e., One Planet,” the minutes said. But whatever other values the CEB’s internal report, and its deliberations, were supposed to embody, transparency was apparently not one of them. According to the confidential minutes, UNEP head Steiner said that the high-level committee report, and the CEB’s feedback about it, are never supposed to become public. Instead, they are apparently to circulate within the CEB and its high-level program committee, “and help the system rally around an agenda that guaranteed the future of the U.N.”
Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the ranking Republican member of the Environment and Public Works committee, told The Daily Caller on Monday that climate change skeptics have won the debate over global warming on Capitol Hill.
“We’ve won the fight because there’s no way in the world they could pass through legislation a cap and trade bill,” Inhofe said, referring to proposed laws that would limit carbon emissions. “It’s dead, gone, forever.”
Inhofe, the author of “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future,” says that he initially believed claims that humans were responsible for climate change. But after reviewing the science behind the claim, Inhofe now says he believes that the theory is a lie, and that the United Nations is largely responsible for promoting it.
“The history goes back to 1972 when this whole thing started,” Inhofe said. “And who was it? It wasn’t Al Gore. It wasn’t MoveOn.org. It was the United Nations.”
The United Nations, he said, has been promoting cap and trade style efforts to combat the non-existent threat of global warming for decades. And if such legislation were ever to make its way through Congress, he argued, it would amount to the largest tax hike in American history.
“I think this was orchestrated. Certainly I think it started with the United Nations, then the Hollywood elites jumped in,” Inhofe said. “Al Gore was clearly the leader, and he was very successful for a period of time. And the vast majority of Americans thought this was for real.”
“That’s all changed now,” he continued.
One way skeptics have won the debate, Inhofe said, is by debunking “every assertion” in “Al Gore’s science fiction movie” — a reference to the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.” He also alluded to polls indicating that Americans have grown much more skeptical of global warming claims in recent years.
When asked what he thought proponents of the belief in man-made global warming have to gain from peddling ideas they know to be false, Inhofe demurred.
“I can’t answer the question because I’m not a liberal, so I don’t know what their motive is other than the fact it’s quite evident that they feel they want to be in a position to run everybody else’s life,” he said.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 02-29-2012).]
BACK BY POPULAR DEMAND WITH AN ALL-STAR CAST... THE FORUM TOPIC YOU LOVE TO HATE!
Ah yes, global warming again.
So, you say that it's logical to discount the probability of AGW because lately we haven't seen the kind of heating in the atmosphere that the infamous James Hansen's NASA computer models have been predicting..?
Not so fast!
The heat from AGW may be going into the oceans. And if it's true--it's likely to come back out into the atmosphere as the years of this century progress and KILL ALL OUR DESCENDANTS! Well, maybe not kill them all. Maybe just raise the temperatures on land so much that it completely rearranges the ecology of the planet.
Here's a brand new post from Skeptical Science, which includes this graph of rising Ocean Heat Content:
I also searched at WattsUpWithThat to see if I could come up with a contradictory article. There may be something there, but I didn't settle on anything that I wanted to include right now.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-16-2012).]
BACK BY POPULAR DEMAND WITH AN ALL-STAR CAST... THE FORUM TOPIC YOU LOVE TO HATE!
Ah yes, global warming again.
So, you say that it's logical to discount the probability of AGW because lately we haven't seen the kind of heating in the atmosphere that the infamous James Hansen's NASA computer models have been predicting..?
Not so fast!
The heat from AGW may be going into the oceans. And if it's true--it's likely to come back out into the atmosphere as the years of this century progress and KILL ALL OUR DESCENDANTS! Well, maybe not kill them all. Maybe just raise the temperatures on land so much that it completely rearranges the ecology of the planet.
Ah, yes. James Hansen and his "computer models"...
Heh heh. Read in the comments section of this article.
CLIMATE CHANGE GLOSSARY
PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.
SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.
DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.
CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’
NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.
DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.
CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.” Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.
JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge.
Climate alarmists have lost a major court case that had the potential for turning every weather emergency into endless litigation. It’s a victory for the law, for science and for common sense.
On Tuesday, Federal Judge Louis Guirola Jr., in the Southern District of Mississippi, dismissed the case of Comer vs. Murphy Oil for lack of standing. Gulf Coast property owners had sought to hold a grab bag of energy companies responsible for damage they suffered from Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The plaintiffs claimed the power companies knowingly had endangered them by emitting unsafe levels of carbon dioxide. The case was dismissed in 2007, then resurrected by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2009. The latest ruling should put an end to it.
For the property owners to be able to claim damages, the court would have had to accept some vast logical leaps. First is the highly speculative argument that carbon-dioxide emissions contribute to cataclysmic weather. There is no statistical evidence that hurricanes, tornadoes, cyclones or other extreme weather events have been increasing in frequency. Nevertheless, after every disaster, climate alarmists exploit the suffering by claiming it is an example of “global weirding.” Because warming has stopped, this vague notion - which can encompass just about any weather fluctuation - is all they have.
Second, the court would have to link Hurricane Katrina specifically to carbon-dioxide emissions. It would have to accept that the timing, intensity and route of the hurricane were caused by - or at least unduly influenced by - emissions enough to have caused the disaster. This would be speculative to the point of absurdity. Hurricanes have always been with us. Climatologists still have an incomplete understanding of what causes them and the factors that determine their life cycle. Even uber-alarmist Al Gore said days after the Katrina tragedy that “no single hurricane can be blamed on global warming.” This may be the only thing about the climate he has gotten right.
Third, the court would have to be able to assess exactly how and to what degree the defendants contributed to Katrina. The alarmist argument rests on the presumption that warmer ocean temperatures will create more destructive storms. If that is true, it would be unjust to hold a group of American energy companies solely responsible. The plaintiffs might as well have sued everyone in the world who drives a car, uses a dry cleaner or breathes because all those activities emit carbon-dioxide.
Empowering such expansive lawsuits was the prime motive at work. Warmists sought to establish a legal framework in which torts could be used as handy weapons to intimidate the energy sector or anyone they felt was standing in their way. If the Comer case had gone forward successfully, every major weather event - hurricanes, floods, blizzards, you name it - would have been followed by a barrage of lawsuits filed by affected parties and backed by environmentalist legal teams.
Fortunately, Judge Guirola understood that it takes more than shaky science, a cause celebre and a national tragedy to make a compelling case. The science may not be settled, but hopefully the law is.
Some heavy reading there. Good for a stretch of those cranial lobes.
Good to see that scientists are still working to get at the truth. Now when will Stockholm realize they committed one grand error giving Al Gore an award for a SCAM.?
IQALUIT, NUNAVUT—Nunavut says a new survey shows Canada’s polar bear population hasn’t significantly declined in the last seven years as predicted and that the iconic mammal has not been hurt by climate change.
An aerial survey done in August by the Nunavut government, in response to pressure from Inuit, estimated the western Hudson Bay bear population at around 1,000.
That’s about the same number of bears found in a more detailed study done in 2004. That study, which physically tagged the bears, predicted the number would decline to about 650 by 2011.
Last year’s survey found fewer cubs — about 50 — than in previous years, but officials say the new figures show the “doom-and-gloom” predictions of environmentalists about the demise of the polar bear have failed to come true.
“People have tried to use the polar bear as a bit of a poster child — it’s a beautiful animal and it grabs the attention of the public — to make people aware of the impact of climate change,” said Drikus Gissing, Nunavut’s director of wildlife management.
“We are not observing these impacts right at this moment in time. And it is not a crisis situation as a lot of people would like the world to believe it is.”
Environmentalists have warned the bears are under serious threat as climate change melts the sea ice, giving the animals less time to bulk up on fatty seal meat. Canada is home to about two-thirds of the world’s polar bears, but environmental experts say climate change could make the Hudson Bay population extinct within a few decades.
Inuit hunters have insisted the population is healthy. They say they are seeing more polar bears and say they aren’t as emaciated or in the poor condition scientist suggest.
Gissing said this latest survey shows the bears are doing well, despite being hunted, and it may be time to re-evaluate the restrictions placed on the polar bear harvest.
“The population was continually harvested since 2004,” he said. “A lot of animals have been removed from that population ... so that should have resulted in a much steeper decline than the one that was predicted in 2004.”
Yes, the Inuit have been saying this all along. We have more polar bears in Canada than we had 25 years ago. The population in some areas has expanded to the point where the animals are endangering small northern communities.
If one goes back on this thread, we were talking about this a couple of years ago. Glad to see the good guys were right and the longer it goes on the more evidence will come out.
BTW, I was watching Lord Moncton on the Michael Coren show on Sun News Network, and he brought up another good point.
The rate of ocean rising over the past 10 years has continued to be 3cm per century. That is less than 1..25" per century. This is the consistent figure since the last ice age. Hmm.........
IQALUIT, NUNAVUT—Nunavut says a new survey shows Canada’s polar bear population hasn’t significantly declined in the last seven years as predicted and that the iconic mammal has not been hurt by climate change.
Beat me to it, I guess Coke is going to have to change their polar bear cans promotion.
Ancient ice cores are stored at the National Ice Core Lab in Denver, Colo. A new study looked at ice and soil cores from around the world to conclude that carbon dioxide levels were followed by rising temperatures at the end of the last Ice Age.
A scientific paper published Wednesday aims to undermine an argument used by some who are skeptical of a connection between warming temperatures and rising carbon dioxide, but those skeptics weren't budging.
Published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature, the study concluded that during the end of the last Ice Age, some 12,000 years ago, global temperatures rose after carbon dioxide levels started to rise.
Earlier data using temperature records from Antarctic ice cores indicated that temperatures rose before C02 took off -- raising questions in the minds of some about how CO2 could then be blamed for warming, either then or over the last century, when emissions from manmade sources have skyrocketed.
For the new study, which was funded by the National Science Foundation, researchers reconstructed temperature records from ice and soil cores at 79 other sites around the world and from around the same time period.
"That would end the argument," lead author Jeremy Shakun, a Harvard researcher, told msnbc.com. "It doesn't hold up."
Changes in Earth's orbit are thought to have triggered the warming trend by causing ice sheets to melt, but the researchers said the new study suggests C02 played a far more important role -- with C02 previously locked up under sea ice escaping out to add to the existing level.
But a website critical of the science was quick to post comments by other skeptics.
"The paper is based on many assumptions without supporting data," Whatsupwiththat.com quoted Don Easterbrook, a geology professor emeritus at Western Washington University, as saying.
University of Oslo geologist Tom Segalstad was quoted as citing a 1992 study that questioned any data from ice cores.
Shakun, for his part, said that "our study bolsters the consensus view that rising CO2 will lead to more global warming."
"CO2 was a big part of bringing the world out of the last Ice Age, and it took about 10,000 years to do it," he said in a statement released with the study. "Now CO2 levels are rising again, but this time an equivalent increase in CO2 has occurred in only about 200 years, and there are clear signs that the planet is already beginning to respond."
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 04-05-2012).]
Before we look at the results, let me just say that I am not here to argue for or against global warming. I simply questioned why those who argue against it do, basing the question in regard to the political leanings of the posters in this thread. From the posts in this thread, and a small amount of background gathered from political arguments in O/T, one can easily conclude that conservatives deny global warming, while liberals say it exists. With that disclaimer, on to the results, which I hope you all enjoy reading as much as I did.
Before we look at the results, let me just say that I am not here to argue for or against global warming. I simply questioned why those who argue against it do, basing the question in regard to the political leanings of the posters in this thread. From the posts in this thread, and a small amount of background gathered from political arguments in O/T, one can easily conclude that conservatives deny global warming, while liberals say it exists. With that disclaimer, on to the results, which I hope you all enjoy reading as much as I did.
I hope you all enjoy the results of this research as much as I did.
None of what you posted matters, kido. The supposed *evidence* supporting global warming is coming apart faster than a Soviet car. That is all that matters, not some opinion pieces on Conservatives.
