Advertisement

Archive for Monday, December 7, 2009

Climate efforts gaining ground

December 7, 2009

Advertisement

— Delegates converged Sunday for the grand finale of two years of tough, sometimes bitter negotiations on a climate change treaty, as U.N. officials calculated that pledges offered in the last few weeks to reduce greenhouse gases put the world within reach of keeping global warming under control.

Yvo de Boer, the U.N.’s top climate official, said on the eve of the 192-nation conference that despite unprecedented unity and concessions, industrial countries and emerging nations need to dig deeper.

“Time is up,” de Boer said. “Over the next two weeks governments have to deliver.”

Finance — billions of dollars immediately and hundreds of billions of dollars annually within a decade — was emerging as the key to unblocking an agreement that would bind the global community to a sweeping plan to combat climate change.

Nations also must need to commit to larger emission reductions, de Boer said.

South Africa on Sunday became the latest country to announce an emissions target. It said over the next 10 years it would reduce emissions by 34 percent from “business as usual,” the level they would reach under ordinary circumstances. By 2025 that figure would peak at 42 percent, effectively leveling off and thereafter begin to decline.

“This makes South Africa one of the stars of the negotiations,” said the environmental group Greenpeace.

President Barack Obama’s decision to attend the conclusion of the two-week conference, after phone consultations with other heads of state, was taken as a signal that an agreement was getting closer. He originally planned to make only an hourslong stop in the Danish capital this week.

More than 100 heads of state and government have said they will attend the last day or two, making Copenhagen the largest and most important summit ever held on climate.

“Never in the 17 years of climate negotiations have so many different nations made so many firm pledges together,” de Boer said. “It’s simply unprecedented.”

Comments

porch_person 4 years, 4 months ago

lawrenceguy40,

(laughter)

Highly entertaining post there, lawrenceguy40. You should post more often. Us "unpatriotic vermin" are highly amused. You must be one disenfranchised fellow.

Yes, I am pro public health care. I'm also pro private health care. Hell, I'm pro health care. I don't like seeing people sick and injured, whether I'm related to them or not.

Yes, I believe abortion should be an option and legal. That has been the law of the land for a very long time. Sorry if that makes America "unpatriotic vermin". That's your own problem. Do I wish fathers raped their daughters and got them pregnant? No. Do I wish other men raped women and got them pregnant? No. Do I wish some fetuses develop without lungs or brains? No. Do I wish to have those raped women and heartbroken couples carry those fetuses to term, only to live for hours so you can have a potent disingenuous political button to push? No.

Yes, I believe that species change in anatomy and physiology over time. That means I believe in evolution. You're a moron.

Marijuana has been legal for quite awhile now, lawrenceguy40. You can get it prescribed to you as "Marinol". In California, you can get the leaf version and so many people have used it to fight nausea and promote weight gain that no one believes it's as harmful as ignorant folks like you would like to claim. Bill Clinton has smoked it. Al Gore has smoked it. George W. Bush has smoked it. John Kerry has smoked it. Barack Obama has smoked it. John McCain has smoked it. The claim that it's bad is falling on deaf ears, lawrenceguy40.

Yes, lawrenceguy40, I believe in being an American. That means I have to contribute to the group. That means I have to pay taxes. To not pay taxes would be like being a xenophobe in my own country and I don't prefer to be that. I like being an American. I have no problems supporting a military or other governmental apparatus that creates the greatest nation on Earth.

On the bright side, there's a lot of people here on the LJ World forum who have your politics. You can network. Have you met TomShewmon?

(laughter)

0

lawrenceguy40 4 years, 4 months ago

p-p - After two minutes of reading your previous drivel, I have determined you are;

-pro public healthcare

-pro abortion

-believe in the evolution lie

-want to legalize pot for our kids

-pro tax,

so your falling for the global warming lie comes as no surprise to me. You should be in Copenhagen along with the other unpatriotic vermin.

I need to wash after reading such garbage......

0

porch_person 4 years, 4 months ago

lawrenceguy40,

Well, sounds like you're trying to take the emails from two, maybe three guys and extrapolating that into a world-wide conspiracy.

Good luck.

You see, when I "believe" in global warming, I don't have to "believe" in it.

I know.

I have the observable phenomenon of glaciers melting where they haven't melted before, and at increasingly higher rates of disappearance. I have the phenomenon of ice shelves that have been there for hundreds of years calving, ice shelves that are larger than US states to observe. And contrary to your opinion, data from all around the world, not just East Anglia England.

No religion about it at all.

I can watch the human population, burning hydrocarbons as a major (some could argue the major) activity of our lifestyle and I know that the heat from all that combustion has to go somewhere. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that, if you build a fire, heat will be produced.

What I find funny is that you "truthers" have absolutely no data of your own to refer to. Most of you couldn't conduct a scientific experiment if you had a gun pointed at your head. There are some of you who think the world is only 8,000 years old. Science is not your strong point. Hell, on this very forum is a guy who teaches high school science in this day and age and he discounts both global warming and evolution!! And no one knows the difference or can tell the difference or gives a crap!!! Denying change and maintaining the inertia against "getting rid of my inefficient car" is something you're very good at.

In science, data and research is conducted under peer review. Fraud is not unknown in research (I've uncovered some myself) and it's an embarrassment for those involved when it comes out but it's error and a little dishonest to claim that the overwhelming evidence of global warming is to be discounted because some scientists fudged some numbers in the field.

0

lawrenceguy40 4 years, 4 months ago

P-P - Kyoto was agreed when people believed that the science still had some validity. The recently discovered e-mails were from the leading proponents of global warming theory to their colleagues, also leading proponents of global warming, describing how they could falsify the data, twist the interpretation and generally hoodwink "lesser" people into believing their theory. Surely if they had any evidence, they would not have to lie, twist and fool to the population at large.

BTW, I know you have no respect for truth or evidence, but just when were the e-mails sent? The eighties? Really? Damn clever, those Brits, routinely sending e-mails before your hero al gore had invented the internet. If you had taken the trouble to look at the evidence, you would see that most of them (actually over 3000, not just a "couple") were sent between 2002 and 2007. But of course, you believe in global warming, so facts and truth are secondary to the belief for you. Let's hope the liberal elite in Copenhagen don't ban Santa Claus - losing two truths in your life in one month would not leave you with much (laughter). Ho ho ho!

0

porch_person 4 years, 4 months ago

lawrenceguy40,

Anyone who thinks that a couple of emails from the Eighties at one university in Britain comprises the entirety of evidence of global warming has a screw loose.

========

"Anyone who cannot see the proof is just a liar with a hidden liberal agenda." --- lawrenceguy40

(laughter)

There's 192 nations who don't think global warming has been fabricated, lawrenceguy40. They disagree with you, lawrenceguy40.

Nations, lawrenceguy40, not just people.

Nations.

======

Russia has signed on to the Kyoto Protocol. The United Arab Emirates has signed on to the Kyoto Protocol!!

Do they have a "hidden liberal agenda"?

(laughter)

(wiping tears from eyes)

I'm just trying to picture the United Arab Emirates as liberal states. I'm having a rough time doing that, lawrenceguy40. Maybe if you tell me what planet you're on, you could help.

(laughter)

0

lawrenceguy40 4 years, 4 months ago

The global warming "science" has been proven to have been fabricated. Anyone who cannot see the proof is just a liar with a hidden liberal agenda.

End of story.

0

porch_person 4 years, 4 months ago

snap_pop_no_crackle,

Subpar argument against data demonstrating that global warming is occurring there, snap.

(laughter)

Are you acknowledging that the primary argument against global warming is not based upon science but inertia in the status quo?

(laughter)

You were doing better when you were inserting line feeds everywhere. It was......cuter.

(laughter)

0

Flap Doodle 4 years, 4 months ago

"...So why do leaders like Barack Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown continue identifying themselves with the climate change agenda and policies like cap and trade? Perhaps it's best to see this as a clash of classes. Today's environmental movement reflects the values of a large portion of the post-industrial upper class. The big money behind the warming industry includes many powerful corporate interests that would benefit from a super-regulated environment that would all but eliminate potential upstarts. These people generally also do not fear the loss of millions of factory, truck, construction and agriculture-related jobs slated to be "de-developed." These tasks can shift to China, India or Vietnam--where the net emissions would no doubt be higher--at little immediate cost to tenured professors, nonprofit executives or investment bankers. The endowments and the investment funds can just as happily mint their profits in Chongqing as in Chicago. Global warming-driven land-use legislation possesses a similarly pro-gentry slant. Suburban single family homes need to be sacrificed in the name of climate change, but this will not threaten the large Park Avenue apartments and private retreats of media superstars, financial tycoons and the scions of former carbon-spewing fortunes. After all, you can always pay for your pleasure with "carbon offsets."" http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/07/copenhagen-climate-change-carbon-emissions-opinions-columnists-joel-kotkin.html

0

porch_person 4 years, 4 months ago

snap_crackle_no_pop,

Same challenge goes to you, snap.

Do you have any data that contradicts our findings of global warming? Any data at all?

Do you have any data that contradicts the understanding of 187 signatories of the Kyoto Protocol or the 192 participants of the current meeting in Copenhagen? That's a hell of a lot of people who don't see things your or Devobrun's way on global warming.

They (the "rest of the world") are all wrong, I'm sure. It's the conservative "Obama isn't an American" idiots on a Midwestern blog who have all the answers on climate change. Why don't you thrill them with your creative use of line feeds. That will show them.

(laughter)

Do you understand the questions or does talking about science become less "sensical" as we progress further and further from your area of understanding?

(laughter)

Are you a high school science teacher who doesn't know how to spell "vertical" too?

(laughter)

0

Flap Doodle 4 years, 4 months ago

You can easily tell when porchie's losing it.

His

posts

get

longer

and

longer

and

make

less

and

less

sense

.

(yuk, yuk)

0

farfle 4 years, 4 months ago

""Greenland was named so because it used to be lush and green. What color is it now"

Actually Greenland was named that way to throw people off. Iceland was a hospitable climate and named such to also throw people off. Look it up.

0

porch_person 4 years, 4 months ago

devobrun,

As a (former) scientist, you know that the only thing which debunks data is better data. Better data you don't have. Better data you can't reference or cite.

Science isn't "American Idol", high school science teacher in Lawrence KS. Elevated or decreased temperature readings aren't produced in popularity contests on newspaper forums, devobrun.

Why don't you know that?

=====

I didn't make any reference to "turkey", devobrun. That was cg22165.

I was the one who corrected your spelling of the word "vertical" and referenced the National Climatic Data Center in North Carolina. The people with more climate data than anyone in the world.

You're acting like George W. Bush. "Devobrunisms". Inabilities to review conversations, misspellings, etc. I wonder if you will go whole hog and confabulate about your doctoral dissertation topic instead of global warming.

(laughter)

===

I'm not one of your high school students. I'm not one of your ignorant conservative boohoos who can't properly punctuate a sentence. I'm not impressed that you know a physician personally and I'm not impressed by Karl Popper.

I am offended by a high school teacher in Lawrence KS who teaches students Karl Popper philosophy instead of the scientific method and knows he is doing so.

======

Devobrun, let me let you in on a topic of current events.

192 nations are meeting to discuss what you claim isn't happening. That's a lot of people who are already convinced of my side of the argument.

(laughter)

Do you teach "Kyoto Protocol" to your high school students or do you have to find a psychic who will clear it with Karl Popper's ghost?

(laughter)

Have a drink, devobrun. Sounds like you need one. You're not doing so well on your hometown newspaper forum against an anonymous blogger.

In science, no less!!

(laughter)

0

Thing 4 years, 4 months ago

This is NOT a climate conference, it is a damned freakshow! • The delegation from Bolivia will be pushing for a Universal Declaration of Mother Earth Rights, which the country's President Evo Morales says "supersede the rights of human beings."

• The Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University is putting on an exhibit to "explore how thoughts affect matter and how a shift in consciousness can transform current deteriorating conditions" for the environment.

• A group called GenderCC (Women for Climate Justice) rejects using distractions like "numbers" and "target dates" to track and fight climate change, and doesn't appear very interested in the environment itself. Instead, it hopes to implement "gender-mainstreaming" and ensure that the U.N. guarantees the fullest participation of "feminist scientists" at every level.

0

devobrun 4 years, 4 months ago

Porch, cg: Looks like you two have been havin' some fun talking turkey and about big words.

Do you think that ridicule advances your argument?

Do you think that restating other peoples words does too?

Do you think that analogies to unrelated items like turkey gives credence to your assertions?

Lemme give you a hint. The mechanism of heat transfer in a cooking turkey is not the same as global warming. There is no greenhouse gas involved with a turkey cooking in an oven.

Convection currents in the oven and Stefan-Boltzmann radiation are two different things.

The folks who read these blogs have a choice. Believe a coupla knuckleheads, or somebody who has measured emissivity as part of his PhD. dissertation.

Yep, I'm outta here. Does anyone find a maniacal tone to Porch's laughter interjections? Not convincing, Porch, scary. You might wanna reconsider that tactic.

0

porch_person 4 years, 4 months ago

Marion,

The National Review??

(laughter)

Ok, we've heard from the conservatives. Now let's hear from the people who actually study the climate.

The National Climatic Data Center

=====

"Is the climate warming?

Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995." ---- http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q3

=======

(laughter)

You see, Marion, science doesn't depend upon polls or who thinks Obama is an African or any such hype. The people who actually measure the temperature say the temperature is rising.

It's real simple.

Bring us some real data and not an opinion column from a very conservative source and perhaps you'll persuade someone.

Until then, you're just a nutcase on a forum, spouting BS.

(laughter)

0

Marion Lynn 4 years, 4 months ago

cont'd:

  • Look at the graphs comparing sunspot activity since 1860 with global sea surface temperatures. They look like matching S curves (unlike the graphs comparing temperatures with CO2 output). Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon notes that 2008 may have been a cold year because sunspot activity was low. The sun has been quiet in 2009 too. "If this deep solar minimum continues," Dr. Soon explains, "and our planet cools while CO2 levels continue to rise, thinking needs to change. This will be a very telling time and it's very, very useful in terms of science and society, in my opinion."

  • Nuclear energy. Global-warming priests, while sermonizing about the need to spend trillions on new energy sources, almost never have a kind word for nuclear power - casting doubt on their motives. If the goal were really to reduce our carbon output (and not to recast our way of life), clean, efficient, affordable nuclear power would be the obvious choice.

  • Fool me once. The same people whose hair is on fire now about climate change have dressed up in fright masks before. Thirty years ago they were (no joke) enormously agitated about the coming new ice age. From these same precincts (the Club of Rome, 1972) we were warned that the world was rapidly running out of oil, gas, aluminum, lead, zinc, copper, tin, and uranium. (We didn't.) At the same time, all of the smart people were absolutely convinced that overpopulation was the greatest threat to the globe and to humanity itself. Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, offered in 1980 that "if I were a gambler, I would bet even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." That same year, the Carter administration issued a global forecast predicting that "the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically . . . and the world's people will be poorer in many ways than they are today." Um, no.

The scaremongers' track record is poor. For people who seem to worship Mother Earth, they are oddly arrogant about their ability to understand complex systems like climate. Every day brings new discoveries about the incredibly complicated interplay of oceans, atmospheric gases, algae, wind, plants, animal excretions, solar radiation, and so forth.

The East Anglia e-mails reveal a priesthood becoming more and more hysterical as their certainty evaporates. Like all orthodoxies under duress, they are making war on heresy.

By Mona Charen: Reprinted with permission from National Review Online."

0

Marion Lynn 4 years, 4 months ago

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/08/opinion/main5939027.shtml?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.7

December 8, 2009 Here's Why People Don't Buy Global Warming

"National Review Online) Though professional hysterics may seek to "hide the decline," there has been a noticeable drop in the number of Americans who believe that global warming is a man-made phenomenon. Pause on that for a moment. Though Americans have been harangued about global warming for more than a decade, only 35 percent told a recent Pew survey that global warming is a serious problem, compared with 44 percent the previous year.

This skepticism predated the exposure of the East Anglia e-mails - those playful missives that reveal some of the most prominent climate researchers to be, if not outright charlatans, at least partisans.

Why don't people buy global warming? Doubtless the poor economy has pushed less immediate worries to the background. But even before the e-mails revealed that supposed neutral truth seekers were prepared to "redefine peer review," and engage in statistical sleight of hand "to hide" inconvenient truths, there were ample reasons for skepticism.

  • It's chilly. There is the pesky fact that, contrary to the dire predictions of climate alarmists, there has been no measurable increase in world temperatures since 1998. Yet the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere has continued to rise. The computer models immortalized by Al Gore did not anticipate this; in fact, they predicted that temperatures would continue to rise steeply more or less forever, except that human beings would all die in 50 years or so with unknown (though presumably salutary) effects on the by-then Venus-like surface of planet Earth.

  • Bullying. Every time a scientist or policymaker slammed his hand on a desk and growled, "The science is settled!" he demonstrated how remote he was from the scientific method. In true science, nothing is ever settled.

  • It's Freudian. The Viennese analyst taught that if you say you hate your mother, you hate your mother. And if you say you love your mother, you are in denial about hating your mother. Climate-change believers are like Freudians. If the weather is warm, it's proof of global warming. But if the weather is cool, this is evidence of the sinister tricks global warming can play.

cont'd:

0

porch_person 4 years, 4 months ago

cg22165,

"Point measurements of atmospheric temperature are limited spatially and temporally." is the $0.25 version of "We can't take temperature measurements everywhere and all the time." A statement of the obvious that doesn't advance any argument except "Devobrun sure talks purty, don't he?"

Sounds cool, though, doesn't it? Not many people use the words "spatially" and "temporally" in the Midwest. Devobrun must be "a reader".

(laughter)

Devobrun chose to compose the phrase that way in order to impress the townsfolk. You are correct in pointing this out.

0

Chris Golledge 4 years, 4 months ago

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Porch: Point measurements of atmospheric temperature are limited spatially and temporally.

And the difference between this and your mom's turkey is what?

By your argument, we can not know what the actual global mean temperature is. This is true; we only have estimates. However, a turkey's temperature while it is being cooked is also just an estimate; would you argue that we can't tell that a turkey gets warmer as it is cooked?

0

Chris Golledge 4 years, 4 months ago

Meanwhile, regarding temperature data and transparency, this is just in:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/na

0

porch_person 4 years, 4 months ago

TomJoad1 / jaywalker,

This group hugging thing is funny to watch. Do both of you feel better?

(laughter)

0

porch_person 4 years, 4 months ago

devobrun,

(laughter)

Showing the weakness in your argument, an argument which stands squarely against the rest of the world in at least two subjects (global warming and evolution) isn't "being emotional".

It's easy.

(laughter)

Well, your site of the GISS page did not contain your description of the data collection process but it did describe why extrapolation is being applied. I found it hilarious that you argue that averages should not be used because they are "models". You gonna teach your students that?

(laughter)

Your problem is that data is being collected at those points.

Real world observations.

You can attempt to call them into question by calling an average "a model" or claiming that you need more data points to be assured that temperatures are rising but the fact is that whether you take two data points a day or five, the real world numbers are going up.

That's the bottom line. Would be happy to see your real world numbers that contradict it. Do the researchers need more data points, temporally and/or spatially, or is this just a flippant and disingenuous argument you make to avoid recognizing the work of thousands of real scientists.

"Verticle" profiling is being done, devobrun, as my citation shows logitudinal data from three different altitudes.

I thought you had done your homework, teacher.

Are you going to claim that I'm "emotional" for pointing out that the high school science teacher doesn't know how to spell "vertical" or doesn't know that atmospheric and oceanic temperature measurements are also done?

(laughter)

Or will the next reason why I'm not doing so well be because you're married to a physician? Going from a University professor to a high school teacher is a pretty good downward slide there, sparky.

If you want to claim that others are beneath you in scientific discussion when they note that Popperian philosophy is not science, be prepared to have your own academic history brought to bear, a history you have already provided to the forum.

People don't post bitter content on newspaper forums against the politics of academic research when they do good research. I think a more accurate description of your rebellion against science, as evidenced by your embrace of a philosopher over science, has more to do with your own academic career than it does with any fault in the methodology of climate researchers.

(laughter)

0

jaywalker 4 years, 4 months ago

I'm not sure he's qualified to take that yet.

0

TomJoad1 4 years, 4 months ago

On the Street Question: Do you think Porch even has a GED?

0

jaywalker 4 years, 4 months ago

devon,

Your biggest problem is thinking you could possibly have a "reasoned discussion" with porch person. And you obviously know what you're talking about while porch continues to try and play grown-up. Save yourself the angst, don't feed the troll.

0

devobrun 4 years, 4 months ago

Porch: Point measurements of atmospheric temperature are limited spatially and temporally.
The thermometers are placed 5 feet above ground in shelters. The shelters modify the temperature data and so the data is adjusted by the shelter model. The data is recorded on a continuous basis, but the average is not computed from integration. The average daily temperature is found by adding the daily max and min and dividing by two. This too is a model. Each temperature site is given a value from 1 to 5. This value is based upon local conditions like proximity to trees, buildings, slope and heat sources. The temperatures are further adjusted with models associated with the site valuation. The temperature measurements can be separated by a hundred miles between sites. Extrapolation is used. Each site only measures at 5 feet above ground. Verticle profiling is not done. Many of the sites are read manually by a guy who goes out to the site, pulls off the paper record, finds the max and min and sends them into NOAA. Mistakes can happen.

Porch, the thermometer is the instrument. The temperature is the result of several models.

Clearly you didn't read the giss site that I linked earlier.

Porch, we test fires all the time. We set buildings on fire and test techniques, equipment, procedures and train firemen. When a fire is called in, the first thing the firemen do is determine if and where the fire is. They have an algorithm they follow to ascertain the situation. Then they apply their protocol and procedures to the situation. It is very rational and all of it is tested.

You're not making much sense here, porch. Your fireman reference is weak. Your failure to do homework (reading the giss site), and your diatribe regarding Popper are troubling. Has emotion become too great to have a reasoned discussion? Perhaps you should pause and think about the level of emotion exhibited in your posts. They are slipping.

0

barrypenders 4 years, 4 months ago

Why don't the emotional Progressive Articulate Climate Scientists resort to a defense that Pastor's used when accused of improprieties with altar boyz?

Stimulus, Global Climate Improprieties and Posercare lives unprecedented

Darwin bless you all

0

ReadingSports 4 years, 4 months ago

I'll take climate fraud seriously when everyone single nut job involved in climate gate is shunned by the Climate science community.

If a scientist sent or received one of those emails they should lose their job, their research should be burned, and they shouldn't be allowed to teach long division to third graders.

One if the scientists involved is Micheal Mann who fabricated the hockey stick.

This climate science isn't!!!!!

0

Pilgrim2 4 years, 4 months ago

cg22165 (Anonymous) says…

You are loosing coherence.


Is coherence a clockwise thread or a counter-clockwise thread?

0

Pilgrim2 4 years, 4 months ago

cg22165 (Anonymous) says…

Hmm, except, the data and statistical analysis are typically not in the press releases; so, not sure how they can be cooked where they aren't presented.


Hyperbolize the conclusions. Spin (cook) the data so it looks worse than the reality.

He, and the ones he is addressing, believe wholeheartedly that the risk of things going very badly, unless the course of BAU is changed, is very high. How does that indicate a falsification of the AGW theory?


Yes, the Apocalypse Cult has some dedicated acolytes. They also likely believe if their bathroom faucet has a once-per-minute drip, their basement is going to flood. So they try to convince everybody else that's what's going to happen. Fearmongers. Alarmists. Liars.

0

Chris Golledge 4 years, 4 months ago

Hmm, except, the data and statistical analysis are typically not in the press releases; so, not sure how they can be cooked where they aren't presented.

And, really, you are showing a bias towards a preconception in your interpretation of the words.

And, as I pointed out earlier, his motivation in making this statement is to prevent dire consequences resulting from AGW. He, and the ones he is addressing, believe wholeheartedly that the risk of things going very badly, unless the course of BAU is changed, is very high. How does that indicate a falsification of the AGW theory? What, they made up the data to create the theory and then forgot that they made it up? And somehow this conspiracy/amnesia has been shared amongst thousands, and persisted for decades, without anyone blowing the whistle. Phenomenal.

How does a reluctance to give too much meaning to a short-term warming trend indicate a manifestation of a marketing strategy to push a warming theory? Is it not more likely that such a long time period was chosen because it was well understood and acknowledged that there are other influences besides anthro GHGs on the climate?

You are loosing coherence.

0

Pilgrim2 4 years, 4 months ago

cg22165 (Anonymous) says…

I believe that quote you love so much fits in better in the context of press releases rather than the actual papers. What percentage of the public reads the actual papers? Judging by the links commonly posted here, not much. But, the press releases get widespread attention, particularly if the media can emphasize something in it that seems out of the ordinary. It's like the OJ trial; the jury hears that there is a 1 in of a million chance that the DNA evidence is wrong, and thinks, 'Oh, there is a chance.' My belief is that Scheider's statement fits in with dealing with public perception rather than the contents of the papers themselves, which are really written for researcher peers rather than the common public. If you have evidence otherwise, please show it.


I don't have to, you just helped me. You're right, Schneider wasn't talking about the papers themselves, but how they are presented to the public. And what he recommended is cooking the data, fearmongering, and keeping a lid on internal critics. In other words, he recommends lying to the public, either about the data itself, its possible consequences, or the unanimity of conclusions. So there is a high likelihood that the recommendation to ignore any data encompassing less than 20-25 years is just another manifestation of Schneider's recommended marketing strategy.

0

lawrenceguy40 4 years, 4 months ago

Global warming has been proven to be false! Read the e-mails.

barry o may not defend us, but we are AMERICANS. We should burn all the fossil fuels we want.

No more liberal lies!

0

jaywalker 4 years, 4 months ago

"Gaining ground" my aunt fannie. A whole buncha talk just adds heat to the carbon footprint these 20,000 'delegates' tromped in getting to Copenhagen. Obama's 'iniitiative' is a farce and has absolutely NO chance of becoming reality, China ain't gonna change and they already pollute more than we do, and Brazil, India, etc. won't be helpin' out much either. I believe going green is just good, common sense. But countries that have been poor for decades finally took our advice and got involved in the free trade market, now they're prospering, ........they ain't givin' that up.

0

Chris Golledge 4 years, 4 months ago

Snap, Please explain what point you are trying to make with bringing up the MWP and LIA, because it isn't clear. I made the assumption that you think you are providing evidence that anthropogenic emissions aren't causing the current warming. Hard to follow what Devo thinks, but he faults me for making that assumption. Could you clear that up?

Devo, you know, when your mom is cooking a turkey, she has only an estimate of what its average temperature is, but it's not that hard to tell it's getting warmer.

0

Flap Doodle 4 years, 4 months ago

Someday the Goreacle will take his rightful place in the scammer's hall of fame beside John R. Brinkley and Charles Ponzi.

0

porch_person 4 years, 4 months ago

TomJoad1,

Well, first you have to learn how to compose your sentences using proper punctuation.

(laughter)

Then you need to find data somewhere that contradicts the organization that has more data than anyone.

(laughter)

After that, you should reflect upon why the anti-Al Gore BS isn't keeping him from gaining awards and influence, awards and influence that the anti-global warming crowd doesn't seem to have. You guys do have Glenn Beck. He's stable. "Obama is the anti-Christ"? Wasn't that one of Glenn's shows recently?

Stable. Glenn Beck.

(laughter)

0

TomJoad1 4 years, 4 months ago

porch person is on the job don't worry, his is a great scientific mind

(laughter)

0

porch_person 4 years, 4 months ago

"All temperature measurements are estimates." --- devobrun

(laughter)

So explain to me this "theory" that you are a former engineer, devobrun.

Are thermometers reporting "estimates"?

(laughter)

Let's see,......you teach Karl Popper BS to high school kids in lieu of the scientific method, you express disdain for evolution because you can't test all possible permutations of our ancestors (therefore you shut your mind to physiologic and anatomic change over time), you claim that we can't notice that things are heating up because we can't perform a Karl Popper "test" on the whole world, .....

(laughter)

Your "philosophy of science" would render firemen obsolete. Clearly we can't "test" burning buildings, so we shouldn't claim that they are on fire, can we Devobrun?

(laughter)

0

porch_person 4 years, 4 months ago

"Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995."

--- http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q3

0

BigPrune 4 years, 4 months ago

"At the time that Greenland was discovered, the Earth was a bit warmer and southern Greenland actually had green meadows and could sustain villages of Norse settlers and their cattle, sheep, goats, horses, etc. The name was actually an accurate description of the land at the time.

Since that time the Earth had cooled down some and the ice sheets advanced, forcing the Norse settlers out again.

A similar history befell the early Norse settlers to "Vineland" (North America). When they arrived the weather was warm enough to grow grapes. Ultimately global cooling drove the Norsemen back to Greenland and then Iceland. The colony in iceland was well established by that time and survived."

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_Greenland_get_its_name

It's just as the bible states in certain passages that a flocks grazed on certain areas that are now barren wastelands.

The climate changes.

0

porch_person 4 years, 4 months ago

tennesseerader,

While Al Gore did represent the Western portion of the 4th district, the 4th is heavily conservative on its Eastern half and has only supported two democratic Presidential candidates in its history. Gore's loss of that district during the Presidential race of 2000 was a narrow one, not the referendum you would like to portray it as.

By the way, this is how you spell "reader". This is how you spell "raider".

You're welcome.

(laughter)

0

porch_person 4 years, 4 months ago

When I want to know about climate, I go to the National Climatic Data Center.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globtemp.html

Site is rather busy right now, for some reason (laughter)........but if you want the no BS data, it's there.

0

tennesseerader 4 years, 4 months ago

This scam benefits frauds and crooks like Al Gore. This jerk wastes more energy than 100 families. I live in Tennessee so I know first hand. This guy has a farm near Carthage, TN that looks more lifeless and alien than a Mars desert. He could not even win his own home district (overwhelmingly democrat) during his failed presidential campaign because his neighbors knew what a liar he is. This whole thing is about global control! NOT ABOUT SAVING THE WORLD..... WAKE UP!

0

devobrun 4 years, 4 months ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

http://wtfcalls.net/reddit/xmas_light_wtf.php

Blasphemy and needling is the best form of humor.

Hanging lights on your house and manipulating data. Great fodder.

Merry Christmas to all.

0

TomJoad1 4 years, 4 months ago

The GCC people are fanatics and willfully ignorant. They should not be creating policy any more than the Taliban.

0

barrypenders 4 years, 4 months ago

Thanks cg22196.

I heard that the dinosaurs CO2 emissions made the atmosphere so swell that humans evolved?

Stimulus, GTM and Posercare lives unprecedented

Darwin bless you all

0

devobrun 4 years, 4 months ago

cg: "Really, all this talk of past warm or cold periods is irrelevant" This statement is wrong. It is relevant, just not definitive.

"therefore, human emissions aren't causing a change today" So, I reviewed the above entries and saw nowhere the statement that human emissions aren't causing a change today. Some have said that compared to non-human factors, the human caused influence is small. But, not the words you used.


Regarding your logic:

If the accused in your above legal argument is seen entering a closed space with the victim, and only the accused comes out, then you may blame the accused. By conducting a test, or gathering evidence that is difficult to refute, with no alternative that is plausible, you may say that the accused did it.

However, because other murders have happened in the past which didn't involve the accused, you may say that somebody else could have done it. Or the accused did it. The information is insufficient at this point to say without some additional information.

And that is where we are in climatology. No experiment can be conducted where the influence of the sun, cosmic rays, ocean currents, etc. can be held in abeyance. There has been a rise in CO2 and a rise in modeled atmospheric temperature. Did the CO2 do it? Dunno. Are there other possibilities? Yes, but we don't know if they are to blame either.

Earlier (10:37) you used the word "facts". Scientists avoid that term because they are almost never available. Evidence exists, estimations show, etc. are what you will read. There are no temperature facts available, cg. All temperature measurements are estimates. They go through models, both objective and subjective. All temperature measurements are small subsets of the atmosphere, Don't believe me? How 'bout Jim Hansen:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html

We don't know cg. That's where we are. And we are about to make massive economic and cultural changes based upon computer models. I don't believe the computer models, cg. You apparently do.

0

Flap Doodle 4 years, 4 months ago

Translation from cgspeak, "ignore the evidence that contradicts my beliefs". Does that pretty well sum it up?

0

Liberty_One 4 years, 4 months ago

cg, the problem is that what passes for evidence in favor of global warming is simply reports about glaciers melting or rising sea levels etc. Thus past warm periods are relevant in that any changes in the climate today cannot automatically be attributed to human causes. To borrow your murder analogy, it's like the prosecutor saying that a person died, so somebody must have murdered him. The defense is simply saying that people die all the time without being murdered. Those who claim man-made global warming have the burden, like the prosecutor, to prove that not only is there warming but that it isn't natural.

0

Chris Golledge 4 years, 4 months ago

BigPrune, Would you mind getting on Google Scholar and searching for research papers, not press articles, which indicated a cooling period was coming?
How many were there? Do you think that constitutes a 'consensus'?

0

Chris Golledge 4 years, 4 months ago

Really, all this talk of past warm or cold periods is irrelevant. No one questions that there are other factors involved besides anthropogenic emissions. Saying that the climate has changed before, without human influence; therefore, human emissions aren't causing a change today, is like a lawyer saying that lots of people have died in when my client was not around, therefore my client could not have killed the victim. It's not a sound argument.

0

Chris Golledge 4 years, 4 months ago

Barry, It's at least 11,000 years old in an area larger than that.

"Four of the drillings analysed are from the central ice sheet, while two of the drillings are from small ice caps outside of the ice sheet itself, at Renland on the east coast..." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090916133508.htm

Personally, I think it is improbable that "lush and green" existed near a large ice sheet.

0

Liberty_One 4 years, 4 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

"What's not said here is that these $billion will fund the creation of new, sustainable economic models, resulting in $trillions in economic production."

If this were true then no government intervention would be needed. Such profitable economic production would attract private capital investments. Hence there are only two possible ways to make sense of your conclusions: 1. You and the government possess special knowledge and foresight that private investors do not possess and are thus the only actors capable of accomplishing this task. 2. Your statement is false.

0

chzypoof1 4 years, 4 months ago

Snap, Pilgrim, Barry: You MUST stop putting out truths about this movement. The "smart followers" know that global warming isn't real, that's why it was retagged "climate change". You MUST fall in line, and start believing everything you are told. We have to save the planet from all that naughty carbon in the air...you know, one of the main elements of life....logic is so skewed today :)

poof

0

barrypenders 4 years, 4 months ago

cg22165 it's really old up north.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/tectonics.html

I'm banking on a "Global Tonic Movement" to shift Greenland to the south, so that sheeples and bovines will flourish in green lush grass.

Eat green to save yourself

Stimulus, GTM and Posercare lives unprecedented

Darwin bless you

0

TomJoad1 4 years, 4 months ago

A warmer planet will support more human life. It is much better than a cooling planet, so do your part and get some carbon in the atmosphere.

0

Flap Doodle 4 years, 4 months ago

Ever hear of the Medieval Warm Period? “…According to the American Geophysical Union, the Little Ice Age was the period between about A.D. 1350 and 1850 when global air temperatures were generally cooler than those of the 20th century. For centuries before the Little Ice Age, there was a Medieval Warm Period. Both climate trends appear to have been widespread and were responsible for a number of changes in various civilizations. For example, the Medieval Warm Period coincides with the Vikings' settlement of Greenland, Iceland and possibly North America. Farmsteads with dairy cattle, pigs, sheep and goats were prevalent in Iceland and along the southern coast of Greenland. Even England was able to compete economically with France in wine production. On the other hand, agriculture steadily declined at higher latitudes during the Little Ice Age, while mortality rates and famines increased. By 1500, settlements in Greenland had vanished and the inhabitants of Iceland were struggling to survive. Although European climate is better documented, the impacts during the Little Ice Age were widespread. In Argentina, Chile and southern Peru as well as southern Africa and northern China, records indicate that the last millennium began with marked warming supplanted by extreme cold during the middle centuries. Proxy indicators - such as tree rings and ice cores - in New Zealand, Australia and California confirm that the changes were widespread. Such effects have been well documented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.” http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba450/

0

BigPrune 4 years, 4 months ago

If you look back in history, you will find the hype of the coming ice age in the mid '70's, you will find the hype of global warming back in the 50s, then back in the 1920s science was saying global ice age, but back in the 1890s science was claiming global warming.

People say things like "scientific consensus" like it means something. It means absolutly nothing.

Note the so called Scientific Consenses with the Climategate email which showed how people peddling the Global Warming/climate change agenda stroked data, supressed data that did not conform to there already decided outcomes.

“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Sir Winston Churchill

Looks like we're repeating history, again.

0

Chris Golledge 4 years, 4 months ago

barrypenders (Anonymous) says…

Greenland was named so because it used to be lush and green. What color is it now Jabot b?

Umm, Barry, how old do you think the Greenland ice sheet is?

0

Flap Doodle 4 years, 4 months ago

“…E is for environmentalism, which the philosopher Harvey Mansfield has defined as “school prayer for liberals,”…” Read the rest at: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-06/exposing-copenhagenrsquos-hot-air/full/

0

sfjayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

Hey barry, greenland was not named because it was green. Wrong again. Nice try thought.

0

Chris Golledge 4 years, 4 months ago

Pilgrim,

I believe that quote you love so much fits in better in the context of press releases rather than the actual papers. What percentage of the public reads the actual papers? Judging by the links commonly posted here, not much. But, the press releases get widespread attention, particularly if the media can emphasize something in it that seems out of the ordinary. It's like the OJ trial; the jury hears that there is a 1 in of a million chance that the DNA evidence is wrong, and thinks, 'Oh, there is a chance.' My belief is that Scheider's statement fits in with dealing with public perception rather than the contents of the papers themselves, which are really written for researcher peers rather than the common public. If you have evidence otherwise, please show it.

Here is a scientist's own lament at the common inability of scientists to communicate to the public so that it real meaning is understood.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/how-not-to-write-a-press-release/

0

barrypenders 4 years, 4 months ago

Greenland was named so because it used to be lush and green. What color is it now Jabot b?

Stimulus, Save everything Green, and Posercare lives unprecedented

Darwin bless you

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

Sounds like a pretty reasonable approach, given the need to counter loud-mouthed know-nothings like yourself, pil.

0

Pilgrim2 4 years, 4 months ago

cg22165 (Anonymous) says…

...one should take any trend less than about 20-25 years with a grain of salt. At least, that is what the IPCC said, when discussing the warming trend.


Yeah, and their lead author also recommended they cook the data, fearmonger, and censor internal critics.

“To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Stephen Schneider, lead 2007 UN IPCC report author and climate alarmist.

Sounds like the advice you quote fits very neatly into Schneider's marketing strategy.

0

Chris Golledge 4 years, 4 months ago

GTG, but I should say I appreciate the way the discussion at the link above at least some potential influence from cosmic rays.

And, it looks like 2009 will be warmer than 2008; so, not sure if you can still massage a negative trend out of the data.

0

TomJoad1 4 years, 4 months ago

“Average temperatures have not increased for over a decade.”

Talk about an inconvenient truth for Al Gore and his raiders.

0

Chris Golledge 4 years, 4 months ago

Well Pilgrim; that is one interpretation. Nevermind that there have multiple peaks and valleys since, oh, 1950, and only one of many measurements, shows a slight downward trend in the last decade, and that only if you pick 1998, an exceptionally hot year, as your starting point. If you pick 1997 or 1999, the trend remains positive, but really, one should take any trend less than about 20-25 years with a grain of salt. At least, that is what the IPCC said, when discussing the warming trend.

But, if anyone wants a counter to what Pilgrim is saying, here is a link full of fact, figures, and lots of arguments just like the one we could repeat here.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Global-cooling-the-new-kid-on-the-block.html

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

I believe that is the main platform of the Progressive Flat Earth Society, snap. If you aren't a card-carrying member, you at least qualify for an honorary membership.

0

Pilgrim2 4 years, 4 months ago

"Delegates converged Sunday for the grand finale of two years of tough, sometimes bitter negotiations on a climate change treaty, as U.N. officials calculated that pledges offered in the last few weeks to reduce greenhouse gases put the world within reach of keeping global warming under control."


Except there hasn't been any global warming for more than a decade.

What happened to global warming?

By Paul Hudson Climate correspondent, BBC News

Average temperatures have not increased for over a decade.

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998. But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm

0

Flap Doodle 4 years, 4 months ago

I support ending the massive charade that is extortion pretending to be AGW.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

I'm glad to see that you support measures that would allow reductions in the carbon footprint required to convene such meetings, snap-- measures that may get a boost at this very meeting. That would be things like a carbon tax, much of which would be used to create more efficient transportation and communication systems. You're such a progressive, snap.

0

Flap Doodle 4 years, 4 months ago

Hundreds of limos, more private jets than can fit in the Copenhagen airport, a carbon footprint a major volcano would envy. Praise the Goreacle!

0

TomJoad1 4 years, 4 months ago

Can I live in your fantasy world too?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

"Finance — billions of dollars immediately and hundreds of billions of dollars annually within a decade — was emerging as the key to unblocking an agreement that would bind the global community to a sweeping plan to combat climate change."

What's not said here is that these $billion will fund the creation of new, sustainable economic models, resulting in $trillions in economic production-- and failure to spend (invest is the more accurate term here) these $billions will lead to economic disaster, and it will likely come sooner, rather than later.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.