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 > UN remains only legitimate climate forum > Comments

UN remains only legitimate climate forum : Comments

By Ethan Bowering, published 28/12/2011

Durban added to these successes by extending the Kyoto Protocol, establishing the Green Climate Fund, recognising the 'emissions gap', and agreeing to a legally binding agreement for both developed and developing countries by 2015.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All
“We must recognise that the UN is the best system we have to find solutions to the climate crisis”.

This may be the most puerile statement on climate change that we have seen in articles on OLO.

The UN is not a system, it is a centre of corruption, which backs the greatest attempted fraud the world has ever seen.

The first lie fest to back this fraud was the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Those which have followed have been equally dishonest, and more ineffective.

The definition of climate change for the Conference contains the words “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity.”

There is no measurable effect of human activity on climate, so the convention is based on something which is negligible, and of no consequence, like the Convention itself.

If countries introduce legislation to give a mandated value to something valueless, like “carbon credits”, then those having the power to create these credits will make trillions in profits. Those handling the trading markets will make billions. The UN will have its sticky fingers in both.

There is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any but a negligible effect on climate. If Julia Gillard urinated in the Harbour in front of Kirribilli, we would know that the Harbour was polluted, but the pollution would have no effect and would not be scientifically measurable.

The UN is unaccountable and fraudulent, and we should withdraw from any treaty on climate change, now that it is obvious that the Kyoto protocol is a failure, as a result of its dishonest basis.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 29 December 2011 1:05:15 PM
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
Poirot, do you understand that what you're saying is circular, or are you not aware of it?

For example one of the scientific issues is with the so-called tropospheric hotspot. According to the mainstream global warming theory, rising carbon dioxide emissions mean that warmth should be bouncing back off a layer in the troposphere - the roof of the alleged greenhouse. The only problem is, they can't find it. That's why I have repeatedly invited warmists for a peer-reviewed scientific paper showing *temperature* measurements of the trophospheric hotspot. No-one has ever answered me. Why not? Because no such scientific paper exists. Why not? They've spent billions trying to find this hotspot; they've bodgied up surrogate measures for temperature measurements such as wind-shear measurements. But no temperature measurements. Why not? Because the tropospheric hotspot doesn't exist. Yet the whole theory depends on it.

So your accusation that it's "hypocritical" of me not to disprove AGW only shows your unfamiliarity with basic concepts of logical thought. The onus of proving a proposition is on the person asserting it. Until the warmists prove there is a greenhouse in reality - not just in their models - then there's nothing for me to prove or disprove. You've simply got an assertion - totally unbacked by science - being dogmatically insisted on without evidence by your "respected" scientific bodies.

Why are they doing that, do you think? It's obviously not because their theory is correct. What other reason might there be?

Why do you respect them?

Why doesn't it concern you that what you're saying is not true?

Why do you take refuge in illogic, even after it's been pointed out that it's illogical? What possible benefit could you get from this behaviour?
Posted by Peter Hume, Thursday, 29 December 2011 10:15:27 PM
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
Peter Hume,

Nice to note that you're adhering to your usual line that anyone you engage in debate is resorting to circular argument....surely you can come up with a new line.

....and I realise that you're deploying the "tropospheric hot spot" as the skeptics trump card, as if it immediately diminishes man made influences on global warming. Lord Monckton does that too - apparently.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dispelling-two-myths-about-the-tropospheric-hot-spot.html
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 30 December 2011 9:17:06 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
There’s no need for me to “come up with a new line” while ever your argument consists of:
1. Assuming we face AGW without proving it
2. Attempting to prove it by posting links that prove my case, not yours.

You obviously didn’t read the link you just posted. I didn’t ask whether there are *models* of the tropospheric hotspot. We know that! I asked whether there are *actual temperature measurements* of it.

“There is a good theoretical basis for this expectation…”

Translation: our models say there should be a tropospheric hotspot.

“Unfortunately, actually determining what is happening in the real tropical troposphere has proven to be quite difficult”

Translation: but we have no real world evidence of temperature measurements to support our theory, despite spending billions of dollars of other people’s money trying to find it.

“Although on seasonal and annual scales, some radiosonde records are in relatively good agreement with theoretical and modeling expectations, on decadal timescales, they show less warming or even cooling of the upper troposphere.”

Translation: our models are wrong.

“However, the tropics, especially at higher altitudes, are a notorious problem area for most if not all of the older radiosonde networks.”

Translation: the evidence does not support our theory.

“And attempts to stitch together longer records from multiple networks (and integrate them with newer satellite records) have introduced problems as well.”

Translation: stitch up the evidence as we did, we still couldn't get it to support our theory.

“ There have been many attempts to quantify and remove these biases …[but] the real world behavior of the troposphere is still unclear”

Translation: it’s clear all right - it clearly doesn’t support our theory.

“Allen and Sherwood … examined … wind shear.”

Translation: being COMPLETELY UNABLE to prove by temperature measurements, we desperately substituted wind-shear measurements, hoping someone, anyone, somewhere would buy this crock of sh!t.

Put aside the pathetic excuses, and this is all you’ve got: NO actual scientific temperature measurements of the tropospheric hotspot on which the entire theory depends.

And that’s a warmist's DEFENCE of the actual science! Unbelievable.
Posted by Peter Hume, Friday, 30 December 2011 4:03:56 PM
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
"Durban added to these successes by extending the Kyoto Protocol, establishing the Green Climate Fund, recognising the 'emissions gap', and agreeing to a legally binding agreement for both developed and developing countries by 2015."

No it didn't!

The Kyoto protocol has lapsed. Some countries agreed to keep their targets, but the binding agreement has lapsed.

The climate fund has been established but with almost no commitment to actually fund it.

The countries have agreed to negotiate a binding agreement. No agreement has actually been achieved, other than nothing binding will come into effect before 2020.

The EU ETS has been shown to be toothless, and most other countries have abandoned any carbon price. Australia is pretty much alone.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 31 December 2011 5:26:02 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
AGW relies on there being a Tropical Hot Spot [THS]; there is none; ergo another reason for declaring AGW a failed theory; even the AGW 'scientists' agree there is no THS, see point 1 here:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3707172.html

Elaborating on this since a comment claimed:

"The hot spot has nothing to do with AGW or the radiative properties of water. It's because of a reduction in the lapse rate as a result of the moist adiabat reducing with added water vapour."

This is completely wrong; the THS is really a function of water vapor feedback, not a first order forcing. You don’t see it in MODTRAN as implemented on line because a surface temperature offset entered in MODTRAN only affects the temperature up through 10 km and its constant. You get the THS only if the lapse rate decreases as temperature goes up because the moist lapse rate gets lower as specific humidity goes up (higher energy content/kg). A decreasing lapse rate is actually a negative feedback, but the increased radiation from increased water vapour [SH] is supposed to more than make up for that.

Say the lapse rate is 6.5 K/km and the surface temperature is 300 K. Then the temperature at 10 km would be 235 K (300-6.5*10). Now let’s raise the surface temperature by 10 K and lower the lapse rate to 6 K/km. In this case the surface temperature is 310 K and the temperature at 10 km is 250 K (310-6*10). So the surface has warmed by 10 K and the 10 km temperature has gone up by 15 K. That’s the source and the signature, but with smaller numbers, of the THS
Posted by cohenite, Saturday, 31 December 2011 8:39:38 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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