(post 2 of 2)

We could also expect to see such a radicalisation of poor people that only by sacrificing their own lives could they fight against the perceived injustice – we might expect them to see this as a war for justice and morality - a holy war, and a resort to tactics like guerrilla warfare and terrorism rather than to conventional confrontation where they would be annihilated by superior force.

Disempowered nations might even look to develop weapons of mutual destruction to improve the bargain for a just share and a right to live by different standards – or at least their disempowered and poverty stricken citizens might accept this tactic by their leaders without objection.

In nations where per capita use of fossil fuels is high we might see evidence of closing borders against refugees and a building up of defences.

Health wise, resulting from excessive consumerism we might expect to start seeing obesity or heart conditions et cetera on a phenomenal scale.

Urged on by the representatives of such nations using catch cries like “democratic principles” and “our way of life is not negotiable”, we might anticipate that even where problems like global warming are acknowledged, the response would be to prop up the lifestyle. New technology would be sought to allow for continued and even expanding per capita consumerism, rather than reining in demands and sharing resources equitably.

We would expect to hear a lot about “clean” coal, “eco” tourism, electric cars and de-salination run by “safe” nuclear power – all in order that lifestyles don’t have to really change.

The consumer lifestyle has wider implications than global warming for the world, whether the weight of science on global warming is accepted as right or not.

For a broad range of related reasons that are easily observed by us non scientists, I believe those who say global warming is serious and man made are right.

Common sense tells me that, although nothing can be certain, connecting the dots strongly suggests that we are going the wrong way.

Chris Baulman
@landrights4all

I don't deny that the climate is changing, Robert Burrows, we now know that the earth's climate has always been in a state of change. We never noticed it before because it happened so gradually, that when its existence was suspected 150 years ago, it was a big surprise.

What I am sceptical of, is to what extent human activity can be blamed for global warming that will cause catastrophic problems to low lying areas. But I am willing to be convinced otherwise, provided that enough scientific evidence can be provided that supports this premise.

That evidence does not look conclusive and scientific financial self interest appears to be a factor in the scientific advocacy. The fact that scientific evidence contradicting global warming in the Claimategate scandal was suppressed hardly supports the idea of scientific impartiality.

Then there was the incident of the Indian scientist who claimed that the glaciers of the Himalayas would be gone in twenty years. Another furphy by a self interested scientist who's job depended on claiming that the sky is falling. Runner has also suggested previous scientific scares which came to naught. There were others. The world was running out of food, and in 1981, the world would run out of oil by 2000.

The public can hardly be blamed for global warming scepticism when the first global warming conference was held in Europe during the worst blizzard ever recorded. So too, the declarations of the climate change advocates like Tim Flannery, who not only purchased a waterside home, but who's claim that "the dams would never fill again" is now the subject of hilarity to the inhabitants of Brisbane and Toowoomba, and a subject of anger to governments who spent billions on white elephant desalination plants.

Earth's climate changes primarily because the sun's output varies, the Earth's tilt varies, and the earth's orbit varies. Atmospheric gas proportions do play a part. But the scientific evidence from geologists know for a fact that the Earths atmosphere once contained 20 times the CO2 levels today when the Earth was much colder.

“Breitbart News can exclusively report on Tuesday night that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has translated and published a Chinese edition of two massive climate change volumes originally published by The Heartland Institute in 2009 and 2011. Together, they represent the most comprehensive rebuttal of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change findings, which have been the basis of the climate change legislation movement across the planet. The Chinese Academy of Sciences is set to present the publication on June 15 at a major ceremony in Beijing. --Breitbart News, 11 June 2013”.

“Mounting optimism that the UN's long-running climate change talks were making good progress in the run-up to the crucial Paris Summit in 2015 were dealt a major blow yesterday as a key negotiating track was suspended at the latest meeting in Bonn. The UN's climate change secretariat, the UNFCCC, confirmed the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI), which advises on the implementation of UN climate change agreements including commitments on climate funding and adaptation, had suspended talks after failing to agree an agenda for the talks that will be carried out in the run-up to this year's annual COP summit in Poland. –-Business Green, 12 June 2013”

“Should the Liberal Party (Venstre) form the new government after Denmark’s general election, it will abandon current energy policies. And one of the first to be removed would be the financial support for onshore wind turbines. The party’s plan is backed by the Danish People’s Party and the Conservatives. --Dagbladet Børsen, 12 June 2013”

Going, going, gone!

This post is straight out of the Lewandowsky manual of insulting the psychology of sceptics; it is recycled trash.

I can think of at least 10 reasons why AGW is garbage; the first is temperature.

CO2 emissions by humans are supposed to increase the temperature; that is the basic point of man-made global warming [AGW]. The more CO2 in the atmosphere the hotter it should get. That is a basic AGW prediction.

It is isn’t happening. Walter Brozek analyses the official temperature data from all the main sources including the satellites:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/08/are-climate-models-realistic-now-includes-at-least-february-data/

Brozek uses 2 criteria; the first from NOAA to test for flatness or zero warming; the second from Dr Phil Jones to test for no statistical warming; the 2 criteria overlap with the second allowing for some slight warming and the first for even cooling. The first shows zero temperature for 15 years; the second for up to 23 years. The first is climatically significant by NOAA standards, the second by Dr Santer’s standards. This means the temperature is not being caused by AGW. The only line going up is CO2; look at Brozek's first graph; AGW is dead and buried right there.

There is nothing comparable, evidence wise, from AGW.

Most people cannot face the realities of the real world.
Corruption is rife everywhere but they still cherish the idea of a politician, real estate agent, car salesman or solicitor Etc, with integrity and continue to deal with them. The alternative is not to be considered.
People can accept the truth of what is said without accepting the implications.
Knowing About Atrocities and Suffering, Stanley Cohen argues that this capacity to deny a level of awareness is the normal state of affairs for people in an information-saturated society
Newspapers regularly carry dire climatic warnings in the same issue as articles that breathlessly promote weekend breaks in Rio. Individuals, can express grave concern, and then just as quickly block it out, buy a new car, turn up the air conditioning, or fly across the world for a holiday.
Primo Levi, seeking to explain the refusal of many European Jews to recognise their impending extermination, quotes an old German adage: ‘Things whose existence is not morally possible cannot exist.’
It follows that the normal reaction to facts that cannot be faced is to deny their existence.

Good one Bob; sceptics are deniers because the enormity of the end of the world is so great they deny the cause of that end, AGW.

Hilarious.

Meanwhile, back on the planet number 2 of the reasons why AGW is garbage is:

2 Models. AGW science is based on modelling which in turn is based on certain assumptions about the effect on climate of various factors such as CO2. This effect is expressed as a forcing and can be seen at the IPCC website:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-ts-5.html

Note how the forcing expected from CO2 is nearly 20 times greater than from the sun. Predictions about how these forcings will determine temperature have been around for a long time and can therefore be checked. Roy Spencer has checked the model predictions against the temperature in the Troposphere:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-observations-for-tropical-tropospheric-temperature/

Some will say Roy’s comparison only shows the models can’t predict the Troposphere. But as Bob Tisdale shows the models also can’t predict sea surface temperatures, land and sea surface temperatures, or precipitation. Nor can they, as Koutsoyiannis showed, predict the past.

AGW is based on complete methodology failure.