Originally posted by fierobear: Hey, Arn. [Thanks] for holding down the fort.
You must not be reading his posts.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: I haven't been using my home computer much since I got my ipad, and the forum keeps crashing both browsers (Safari and Chrome). Posting stuff with quotes and links is really tough on my smartphone. I'll try to get on the desktop more often so FlyinFieros doesn't get away with history propaganda and bullshit so often!
Aww. This isn't the first time poor fierobear pitched a sob story as an excuse to avoid answering for his nonsense.
"The Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR) is a network of 100 institutional investors representing more than $11 trillion in assets committed to addressing the risks and seizing the opportunities resulting from climate change and other sustainability challenges." Source.
Swiss Re, the world's second largest reinsurer, "understands the relationship between climate and natural disaster risk and the societal impact of both. We've been shaping the global climate agenda through dialogue with our public and private sector partners, cutting-edge research and innovative risk transfer solutions for over two decades." Source.
Swiss Re, the world's second largest reinsurer, "understands the relationship between climate and natural disaster risk and the societal impact of both. We've been shaping the global climate agenda through dialogue with our public and private sector partners, cutting-edge research and innovative risk transfer solutions for over two decades." Source.
You don't understand. Swiss Re is obviously collaborating with the world governments, virtually all climate scientists, and Exxon Mobil to take control of people's lives!!!! Rush Limbaugh just got paid to tell me so, so it must be true.
That's how ridiculous this is. There are 30,000 climate scientists writing scientific papers showing why MMGW is real, and this is all discredited because a right-wing pundit says so.
[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 01-14-2014).]
The The Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR) has got nothing to do with climate science. Just the same as Exxon or any other large corporation.
What they have to do with is positioning companies to prosper within the framework of Government policies and market realities.
They have to plan around the realities of these things to make their investors money.
That reality is that Obumbles, and many other world leaders are dupes to the UN's plans to destroy the western economies and transfer wealth to the 3rd world.
If I was the CEO of Exxon I'd be planning around Global Warming policy too. They have to.
So, where is the hard data to prove there has been Global Warming. The Climate is always changing and shifting and that is a given. So where is the proof that the co2 levels correspond to the "rise" (or lack thereof) in Global Temperature?
Show me the historical data that backs that up, not wordy bs please
There's no single page or data plot that can prove MMGW. The conclusions are pieced together from many independent lines of evidence: for which there are links, scattered throughout the 91 screen pages of this discussion. If there were any reality to Arn's "wordy bs" attitude (which there isn't), then we could all abandon our day jobs and become climate scientists instead.
But we can't.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-14-2014).]
There's no single page or data plot that can prove MMGW. The conclusions are pieced together from many independent lines of evidence. If there were any reality to Arn's "wordy bs" attitude (which there isn't), then we could all abandon our day jobs and become climate scientists instead.
But we can't.
Your link has no reference to temperature data. They don't want to have that front and center because it disproves their argument.
Although they do say
quote
it is likely that the GMST anomaly for the period 2016–2035, relative to the reference period of 1986–2005 will be in the range 0.3°C to 0.7°C
Which is again, an educated guess. Notice they are basing their projections on a 19 year period which is a rather small period on which to base their projectin, given the data of the last century and a half which is available . Arn
An "educated guess" (i.e., a scientific prediction with a high degree of confidence) is better than the alternative of political conjecture and uneducated guesses.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: The The Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR) has got nothing to do with climate science. Just the same as Exxon or any other large corporation.
I'm not citing them for scientific evidence.
I'm citing them to show you the scientific consensus from a rational business perspective.
Exxon Mobil supports new taxes to combat global warming. Source. Not because they're scared of Obama, but because "rising greenhouse-gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems." Source.
It's a perfect reality check for folks spouting nonsense about 'the liberal hoax'. Exxon is a piece that makes your conspiracy theory hilariously asymmetric.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Show me the historical data that backs that up, not wordy bs please
The historical data is all over this thread. You don't want to see historical data. You want to continue living in your fantasy world.
Aww. This isn't the first time poor fierobear pitched a sob story as an excuse to avoid answering for his nonsense.
I just knew you would chime in with more of your arrogant, self indulgent crap. And you the bait EVERY TIME.
Exxon Mobil supports new taxes to combat global warming. Source. Not because they're scared of Obama, but because "rising greenhouse-gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems." Source.
It's called "public relations", you moron. More proof you don't know s*** about the free market and business.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 01-14-2014).]
Originally posted by fierobear: I just knew you would chime in with more of your arrogant, self indulgent crap. And you the bait EVERY TIME.
Oh wow you really got me there. Guess I'll just pick up the pieces and move on with life in a world where Exxon Mobil supports taxes to control global warming.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: It's called "public relations", you moron. More proof you don't know s*** about the free market and business.
Exxon Mobil still supports new taxes to control global warming. Source.
Simple inescapable fact. Your lousy excuses and childish name calling wont make that go away.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-14-2014).]
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Notice they are basing their projections on a 19 year period which is a rather small period on which to base their projectin, given the data of the last century and a half which is available.
Arn
Hmm, 19 years is too small? But 16 years was enough for you here.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-14-2014).]
Why are you so wrapped up in the politics and incapable of sticking to the science? The Democrat controlled 85th congress also pushed for space exploration, founding NASA, which ultimately put us on the moon. So the apollo program including the moon landing was all a hoax made up by democrats for government control too?
[This message has been edited by RandomTask (edited 01-14-2014).]
Wait, so solar activity CAN'T explain 20th century warming, but it CAN be the cause of the so called global warming "pause"? LOL, and people take these warmists SERIOUSLY?
Why are you so wrapped up in the politics and incapable of sticking to the science? The Democrat controlled 85th congress also pushed for space exploration, founding NASA, which ultimately put us on the moon. So the apollo program including the moon landing was all a hoax made up by democrats for government control too?
Because the doctored "science" is being used to create MAJOR changes in public policy. Perhaps a better question is why you fail to see the link, and the danger that flawed science leads to politicians creating flawed public policy such as massive tax increases to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
A carbon tax is a tax on EVERYTHING. It would negatively impact EVERYONE, all the way up and down the economic scale.
Wait, so solar activity CAN'T explain 20th century warming, but it CAN be the cause of the so called global warming "pause"? LOL, and people take these warmists SERIOUSLY?
Skimming the paper it seems pretty basic, summarized by this one graph.
Solar output goes down, global temperatures flatline. Sounds like there's some other force at work. Besides, the source you JUST USED shows global temperature on the rise!
It doesn't bode well for you that you still use Anthony Watts as a source of information.
[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 01-15-2014).]
Originally posted by fierobear: Because the doctored "science" is being used to create MAJOR changes in public policy. Perhaps a better question is why you fail to see the link, and the danger that flawed science leads to politicians creating flawed public policy such as massive tax increases to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
A carbon tax is a tax on EVERYTHING. It would negatively impact EVERYONE, all the way up and down the economic scale.
Your post is nothing but outdated alarmism.
Even Exxon Mobil supports new taxes to control global warming. Source.
Because the doctored "science" is being used to create MAJOR changes in public policy. Perhaps a better question is why you fail to see the link, and the danger that flawed science leads to politicians creating flawed public policy such as massive tax increases to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
I get that you don't like the policy implications. I get that you want cheap fuel because you like big engines, or cheap transportation, or whatever. The problem is that you've completely failed to discredit the science.
I have NOTHING to gain with AGW. I have big cars with big engines. That doesn't keep me from admitting the science is sound and I might have to make changes to my lifestyle.
quote
A carbon tax is a tax on EVERYTHING. It would negatively impact EVERYONE, all the way up and down the economic scale.
A carbon tax would benefit products that don't use a lot of carbon. It doesn't harm everyone. Pretty basic stuff.
Let’s be clear here: The way humans are living on this planet is unsustainable, and we are destroying our environment. There’s no doubt about it. A lot of people who have a difficult time opening their minds to the idea that ‘global warming’ is a fraud tend to get angry when they assume people are pretending that what were doing to the planet is okay. It’s not.
When we say that ‘global warming’ is a fraud, what we mean is there are corporations and people behind those corporations pushing a greater agenda whereby ‘global warming’ has become a campaign seeking to steal more of your money through taxation.
The real agenda behind the idea of ‘global warming’, now called ‘climate change’ is to create a global taxation system whereby people and corporations must pay for carbon credits. They tax you for everything else, why not tax you also for the air you breathe?
Here are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is not man-made:
1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.
2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.
4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.
6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.
7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.
8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.
9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” – suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming
10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.
Learn more with books about the Global Warming Fraud:
The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam
11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago
12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds
13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.
14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions
15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”
16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.
17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.
18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control
19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.
20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century – within natural rates
21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades
23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries
24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder
25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research
26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles
27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.
28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population
29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago
30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles
31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming
32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures
33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere
34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere
35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything
36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes
37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”
38) The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC
39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally
40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms
41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful
42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical
43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests
44) The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years
45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution
46) The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations
47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.
48) The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change
49) The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.
50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies” but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.
51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required.
52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at “at the top end of IPCC estimates”
53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water – including CO2, calcium, and water – can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.
54) The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics. Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot
55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers.
56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting.
57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.”
58) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.
59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”, but we are continuing along the same lines.
60) The UK ’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth.
61) The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.
62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed.
63) It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural.
64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the “hockey stick graph” which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn.
65) The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive.
66) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth’s temperature.
67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty”.
68) The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.
69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years – so it expects global warming to resume swiftly.
70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.”
71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure.
72) The first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all.
73) The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead.
74) To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions.
75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.
76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback – and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.
77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.
78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.
79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun).
80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists on the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, were found to have serious concerns.
81) The UK’s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.
82) Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money – under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to £1 billion a year.
83) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.
84) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.
85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.
86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures – in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.
87) The Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power costing around £4 billion a year over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only £4 to £5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times.
88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.
89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.
90) Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.
91) The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.
92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).
93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut emissions by 2050 to equal those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama’s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen.
94) The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.
95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic.
96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions and its record as one of the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters.
97) India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon.
98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said: “We – along with many of our fellow citizens – are apprehensive about the climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997” and “based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.”
99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”
An orchestrated campaign is being waged against climate change science to undermine public acceptance of man-made global warming, environment experts claimed last night.
Ads by Google
Coats® Tire Changers Save Up To $500 on a Coats® Tire Changer. Act Now, Offer Ends Soon!
The attack against scientists supportive of the idea of man-made climate change has grown in ferocity since the leak of thousands of documents on the subject from the University of East Anglia (UEA) on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit last December.
Free-market, anti-climate change think-tanks such as the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in the US and the International Policy Network in the UK have received grants totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds from the multinational energy company ExxonMobil. Both organisations have funded international seminars pulling together climate change deniers from across the globe.
Many of these critics have broadcast material from the leaked UEA emails to undermine climate change predictions and to highlight errors in claims that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. Professor Phil Jones, who has temporarily stood down as director of UEA's climactic research unit, is reported in today's Sunday Times to have "several times" considered suicide. He also drew parallels between his case and that of Dr David Kelly, found dead in the wake of the row over the alleged "sexing up" of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Professor Jones said he was taking sleeping pills and beta-blockers and had received two death threats in the past week alone.
Climate sceptic bloggers broadcast stories last week casting doubts on scientific data predicting dramatic loss of the Amazon rainforest. All three stories, picked up by mainstream media, questioned the credibility of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the way it does its work. A new attack on climate science, already dubbed "Seagate" by sceptics, relating to claims that more than half the Netherlands is in danger of being submerged under rising sea levels, is likely to be at the centre of the newest skirmish in coming weeks.
The controversies have shaken the IPCC, whose chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, was subjected to a series of personal attacks on his reputation and lifestyle last week. A poll this weekend confirmed that public confidence in the climate change consensus has been shaken: one in four Britons – 25 per cent – now say they do not believe in global warming; previously this figure stood at 15 per cent.
Professor Bob Watson, the chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and former chairman of the IPCC, said yesterday that the backlash is the result of a campaign: "It does appear that there's a concerted effort by a number of sceptics to undermine the credibility of the evidence behind human-induced climate change." He added: "I am sure there are some sceptics who may well be funded by the private sector to try to cast uncertainty."
A complicated web of relationships revolves around a number of right-wing think-tanks around the world that dispute the threats of climate change. ExxonMobil is a key player behind the scenes, having donated hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past few years to climate change sceptics. The Atlas Foundation, created by the late Sir Anthony Fisher (founder of the Institute of Economic Affairs), received more than $100,000 in 2008 from ExxonMobil, according to the oil company's reports.
Atlas has supported more than 30 other foreign think-tanks that espouse climate change scepticism, and co-sponsored a meeting of the world's leading climate sceptics in New York last March. Called "Global Warming: Was It Ever Really a Crisis?", it was organised by the Heartland Institute – a group that described the event as "the world's largest-ever gathering of global warming sceptics". The organisation is another right-wing think-tank to have benefited from funding given by ExxonMobil in recent years.
A large British contingent was present at the event, with speakers including Dr Benny Peiser, from Lord Lawson's climate sceptic think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF); the botanist David Bellamy; Julian Morris and Kendra Okonski from the London-based International Policy Network; the weather forecaster Piers Corbyn; Christopher Monckton, a former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher; and Professor David Henderson, a member of GWPF's advisory council. Speakers at the event also included two prominent climate bloggers who associate with Paul Dennis, a 54-year-old climate researcher at the University of East Anglia who has been questioned by police investigating the theft of climate data.
In a posting on the blog of the climate sceptic Andrew Montford on Friday, Mr Dennis insisted: "I did not leak any files, data, emails or any other material. I have no idea how the files were released or who was behind it."
But he confirmed that he had been in email contact with Stephen McIntyre, who runs climateaudit.org – a site that was one of the first to receive an anonymous link to the original leaked data from UEA.
Mr Dennis said he emailed Mr McIntyre to alert him to a "departmental email saying that emails and files were hacked" and that "police had copies of my email correspondence with Steve McIntyre and Jeff Id [a pseudonym for the climate sceptic Patrick Condon]. They said it was because I had sent the emails that they were interviewing me."
The UEA researcher also has connections with another prominent sceptic, Anthony Watts, with whom he has posted and who spoke beside Mr McIntyre. Mr Dennis was not available for comment.
Bob Ward, the policy director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics, said: "A lot of the climate sceptic arguments are being made by people with demonstrable right-wing ideology which is based on opposition to any environmental regulation of the market, and they are clearly being given money that allows them to disseminate their views more widely than would be the case if they didn't have oil company funding."
But Dr Richard North, a climate change sceptic and blogger, rejected claims of a conspiracy as "laughable" and denied having any links to vested interests. "Anybody who knows me knows I'm a loner. Nobody tells me what to do or dictates my agenda."
ExxonMobil said in a statement: "We have the same concerns as people everywhere – and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions."
Solar output goes down, global temperatures flatline. Sounds like there's some other force at work. Besides, the source you JUST USED shows global temperature on the rise!
In addition, according to the graph cited solar irradiance and temperatures have been going in completely opposite directions since the 1980's.
endalldisease is not a denier outfit. In fact they say the following before posting their list
quote
Let’s be clear here: The way humans are living on this planet is unsustainable, and we are destroying our environment. There’s no doubt about it. A lot of people who have a difficult time opening their minds to the idea that ‘global warming’ is a fraud tend to get angry when they assume people are pretending that what were doing to the planet is okay. It’s not.
When we say that ‘global warming’ is a fraud, what we mean is there are corporations and people behind those corporations pushing a greater agenda whereby ‘global warming’ has become a campaign seeking to steal more of your money through taxation.
The real agenda behind the idea of ‘global warming’, now called ‘climate change’ is to create a global taxation system whereby people and corporations must pay for carbon credits. They tax you for everything else, why not tax you also for the air you breathe?
I doubt the graph, it is part of the hockey stick.
It was fierobear's source.
quote
Avengaodor's post is absolutely correct.
Did you even read some of their "reasons"?
1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity. I think 30,000 peer reviewed scientific papers in one year would count as "scientific proof".
7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends. No, it's not even close.
10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years. Another large body of research suggests this list of "100 reasons" is pulled out of someone's mud pie generating apparatus. Seriously, 30,000 papers to 1 last year in favor of AGW.
29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago How is this even a reason?
30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles Now they are repeating themselves...
31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming Completely unsubstantiated and ridiculous.
35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything This statement doesn't even make sense. Computer models DO verify that CO2 increases cause global warming.
101) Drinking fossil fuels, especially gasoline and kerosene, are proven to be part of a healthy lifestyle I made this one up, but it fits right in with the nonsense.
Nothing on this list has any scientific backing and no sources are cited.
All the BS scaring people from vaccines is downright dangerous.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:
You're obviously part of the conspiracy network of doctors making big bucks on autistic children.
With the lunatics today, could you imagine if we faced another epidemic like polio? When we as a society (government) looked at a problem back in the day and said "We're tired of iron lung wards" .We looked at the situation, knew that vaccinations are essentially only effective when applied in mass, and mandated it.
Today it would be "OMG! The government wants control! They can't tell me what I put in my body! ITS A LEFT WING COMMUNISTS MIND CONTROL CONSPIRACY! The proof is right here from www.tinfoilhat.com!"
[This message has been edited by RandomTask (edited 01-15-2014).]
In addition, according to the graph cited solar irradiance and temperatures have been going in completely opposite directions since the 1980's.
Obviously you don't get it. NASA, the organization that put a satellite out of our solar system, put men on the moon, landed an SUV on Mars, has satellites specifically designed to monitor solar output, and has telescope(s) in orbit that can see millions of light-years away, simply doesn't understand science!
Because the doctored "science" is being used to create MAJOR changes in public policy. Perhaps a better question is why you fail to see the link, and the danger that flawed science leads to politicians creating flawed public policy such as massive tax increases to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
A carbon tax is a tax on EVERYTHING. It would negatively impact EVERYONE, all the way up and down the economic scale.
Do you complain about policies implemented (at cost) to reduce NOx emissions so our cities don't look like China's with smog? Do you complain about the massive amount of subsidies (at cost) we pump in dairy to lower the cost of a gallon of milk? Do you complain about the price controls via regulation imposed on utility companies so they can't gouge the crap out of customers?
So these things are good when they lower the costs for you, but bad when applied in the opposite direction?
You know how hidden costs work, right? If a company was dumping extremely toxic chemicals in drinking water to keep their profits up (costs down), do you think we shouldn't be able to impose regulations (increasing costs) so they didn't do that? Or do think you shouldn't be reimbursed by the company for having to go buy more expensive drinking water, especially if you never used their product?
When the Hinkley groundwater situation came to light, PG&E figured it was cheaper to avoid common sense safety measures. The entire preface was translating the costs that was in terms of health ramifications (cancer) into financial costs.
Due to their health ramifications, we heavily tax cigarettes to steer people away from smoking. If more people smoked, there would be more cases of cancer which is expensive to treat. That cost of care would get rolled into insurance premiums. So even if you didn't smoke and everyone else did, your insurance would be higher because of other peoples actions.
[This message has been edited by RandomTask (edited 01-15-2014).]
Why are you so wrapped up in the politics and incapable of sticking to the science?
It's what he does. It's who he is.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:
I just knew you would chime in with more of your arrogant, self indulgent crap. ... It's called "public relations", you moron. More proof you don't know s*** about the free market and business.
We got the message I heard it on the airwaves The politicians Are now dj's The broadcast was spreading Station to station Like an infection Across the nation Though you know you can't stop it When they start to play You're gonna get out the way
The politics of dancing The politics of ooh feeling good The politics of moving, aha If this message's understood
The politics of dancing The politics of ooh feeling good The politics of moving, aha If this message's understood
We're under pressure Yes we're counting on you Like what you say Is what you do It's in the papers It's on your tv news Oh, the application Is just a point of view Well you know you can't stop it When they start to play You're gonna get out the way
The politics of dancing The politics of ooh feeling good The politics of moving, aha If this message's understood
