The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Will the Paris Climate Talks be too little and too late? > Comments

Will the Paris Climate Talks be too little and too late? : Comments

By Fred Pearce, published 14/10/2015

'The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is going to come out of the oven in Paris,' says a U.N. official. In fact, he said, they leave the world on course for at least 3 degrees C of warming.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. Page 17
  10. 18
  11. 19
  12. All
Dear Leo Lane,

Really mate, you can sit there all day with your head up your backside intoning your little mantra about there being no evidence that humans are impacting the climate yet you refuse to pull your sizable scone out to take a look.

It ain't rocket science my friend, humans are putting greater amounts of CO2 into the air which by the laws of physics has to warm the planet and this is in turn clearly showing up in the temperature record. Your leap of faith that it is not happening is on a par with the best of the sack cloth and ashes zealots. Either thant or you have a terminal case of CCDD.

http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/9lxl
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 27 October 2015 1:27:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steele,
Leo is setting himself up as an expert on CO2 isotopes.
He also has better data than the ARM 11 year study which collected data on pretty well a daily basis in the environment at two locations. According to Leo that's not science.

ExxonMobil has been caught out having at the very best committed vile misrepresentation of the science that ExxonMobil scientists had come up with in relation to anthropogenic climate change. ExxonMobil had even set up a tanker to collect data from various locations.
The modelling set up by ExxonMobil scientists in 1984 of sea ice in the Arctic has proven to be accurate.
When the science collected by ExxonMobil in the 1970s and 1980s states that anthropogenic climate change is happening; the question is why did management go against the science produced by their scientists? Anybody with a non-blinkered view can work that out.

mhaze, earlier I wrote about a study by Vaks et al about formations in caves in permafrost areas and caves where permafrost was intermittent. That relates very directly to the spread of "drunken trees".

This is your comment after I had referred to the Vaks et al study:
"When you doubted that there were indeed 'drunken trees' back in the 19th century you asked for proof."

Vaks et al wrote about the permafrost areas moving North and South over thousands of years; "drunken trees" being a product of the shift of permafrost.

Continued:
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 27 October 2015 7:32:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued:

A previous quote provided from National Geographic:
"For the first time in tens of thousands of years, Siberia's frozen land is undergoing a thaw. Scientists warn that the process could release billions of tons of carbon, which could quickly turn into greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and further accelerate global warming."

In other words, the permafrost thawing has moved far North of where it had been previously been known. The importance of the Vaks et al paper is that he established the temperature point where permafrost begins to thaw. The IPCC hardly dealt with the issue of permafrost.

I do continually ask for proof; mhaze, it's a mechanism to get people to check out the science.
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 27 October 2015 7:33:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting post there Bugsy. You start of advising I "cant just rewrite things to suit yourself." You then acknowledge that the IPCC indeed uses the words I use and end up meekly assertion that I might have implied something that you didn't like.

You've made an unfounded assertions and debunked that assertion all in one post. Kudos.

ant,
Read the Exxon sourcedocuments yet?
Found these fabled papers that overturn the IPCC's AR5 opinion?

I get what you're saying ant. There are lots of scientists who think that AGW is happening and you're anxious to abdicate you're own logic facilities to their better judgement.

I know I'm going to get tired of saying this but I also agree that there is warming and some part of it is caused by man's CO2. The issue is how much is caused by man? How much more will it warm?Whether the warming is good or bad. What should be done, if anything, to reduce CO2 emissions.
You have this childish view of what so-called deniers think which you then seek to nobly refute. But you're fighting a phantom. Perhaps, as I suggested earlier, if you read more widely you'd have a clearer understanding of what the issues are.

You're getting a little confused on permafrost. Now you're referring to the Vaks study which showed melting in previous periods. But previously you thought that the current postulated thawing was somehow special and required that I provide proof to the contrary.

BTW, did you read the Vaks study or as is your wont, did you just read what others wanted you to know about it. In that study they say that we need 1.5c of warming to cause any real concern. Perhaps reading the report would help your understanding.

SteeleRedux,
Ed Begley Jr? I'd be more circumspect about those I defer to.
Go here to find out about the ethics of this climate warrior...
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/james-okeefe-punks-hollywood-greens.php
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 28 October 2015 8:36:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually mhaze, what you've written is not what they wrote. You used the same words but reordered them to suit your own interpretation.

That's misrepresentation.
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 28 October 2015 9:40:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze, in relation to permafrost thawing it is happening closer to the North Pole than had previously been found over thousands of years ago.
I'm sorry that you cannot comprehend the relationship between Zaks et al, permafrost thawing , and the National Geographic reference provided. In relation to Zaks et al ; as you asked, I have seen film clips of him being interviewed, read the article in Science Journal, and have seen commentary from others.

By suggesting some kind of comparison between the IPCC AP5 not answering your question, and ExxonMobil management overturning the science of their own workers is a bit cute. When taking into account the number of papers published in previous years and the thousands that have been published this year (24,000 between 2013 and 2014).

It is highly likely that ExxonMobil will be investigated with the potential of criminal charges being laid under the RICO Act. Time is the only factor that may be in their favour.

As shown by SteeleRedux, your commentary has changed from years ago. Though your more recent posts have changed from years ago, you still display the denier technique of trying to cast doubt.
An illustration is in first referencing ExxonMobil "gate", I mentioned the breadth of the evidence against ExxonMobil beyond documentation. Very clearly provided in the references present. Your response was that you spoke with somebody from WUWT, who suggested the documentation did not show any problems.

Your WUWT colleague proved to be wrong.
The denier technique of trying to down play what has happened.

Currently, we are seeing what can be described as a crime against humanity created by greed and having an impact on climate. The fires in Indonesia are impacting on a number of Asian countries; people have died, thousands of others have had major health problems, schools and airports have had to be closed.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 28 October 2015 11:20:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. Page 17
  10. 18
  11. 19
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy