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’S decarbonisation mission impossible > Comments

UN’S decarbonisation mission impossible : Comments

By Michael Kile, published 24/12/2015

An international pension fund coalition - co-founded by a UN agency last September - wants to shift at least USD600 billion of other people’s money out of fossil fuels and into renewable energy projects.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All
Same old, same old and completely ignores the historical data, which informs us it would be in our very worst interests to allow the ambient temperature to rise to an additional 2C in total.

For reasons only known to him, The author is limited in his assessment of alternative decarbonizing options, to the most expensive renewable options?

And ignores sane economic options, like cheaper than coal thorium, which given its logical application, can produce industrial energy for around half of today's cost.

He also ignores the production of homemade cheap as chips biogas (methane and scrubbed able o be used in ceramic fuel cells to provide free hot water, and on demand energy 24/7.

Moreover, thanks to the 80% coefficient of the ceramic fuel cell and very localized distribution models, able to produce domestic energy for less than a quarter of the current gold plated charges of coal fired power.

And emerging battery technology is bound to see the electric car or methane consuming fuel cells completely replacing gasoline fueled variants in the next 15 years.

Anyone with half a brain and a position on some energy related business board, would see their fiduciary duty is embracing these new technologies rather than arguing against them!

The fossil fuel barons have had their day, and would be well advised to act like competent businessmen, cut their losses and get on board with those alternatives of which there are many, which forever end our reliance on fossil fuels, all while massively improving our economic prospects and theirs.

Simply put, they need to embrace change or be steam rolled by it.

Financing much of the alternatives into being, is loaded with quite massive money making/earning potential!

Albeit, loss of central control and a captive market, would reintroduce competition, the very cornerstone of a capitalist style free market!

And don't we need that restored in the energy sector, one of the two support pillars that support every western style economy?

And routinely white anted by the very commercial entities the Author seems to seek to "protect"?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 24 December 2015 9:19:07 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
Michael Kile,

"The planet’s future climate may – or may not – turn out be an insoluble mystery, but one thing is certain. Sooner or later, the wheels will come off Clean Voyage 2 (or 1.5). For climate-$$-change is shaping up as the greatest boondoggle in history."

Well said. This is the real issue. The policies being proposed by climate alarmists cannot succeed. This explains why carbon pricing cannot succeed: http://anglejournal.com/article/2015-11-why-carbon-pricing-will-not-succeed/ . The same applies to any policy that will reduce economic growth in any country. Such policies are not politically sustainable.

'The Climate Industry' is a $1.5 trillion per year industry according to the Climate Change Business Journal, reported in Insurance Journal here: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/30/377086.htm . That's a massive waste of money delivering no net-benefit whatsoever.

And the vast majority (~99%) of the people of the world couldn't care less about the climate change. It is not their priority.

Even climate scientists lack the evidence to support the argument that GHG emissions are dangerous: "What is there a 97% consensus about?" http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/20/what-is-there-a-97-consensus-about/

97% of the 12,000 abstracts considered by Cook et al., 2013 - that made implicit or explicit statement about attribution - state humans are having some effect on the climate, but we don’t know how much. A reanalysis of Cooks data shows just 0.5% of the abstracts analysed “explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of global warming” and 8% “explicitly states that humans are causing warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact”.

The best description of the whole climate change thingy is the world's greates ever boondoggle.
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 24 December 2015 10:02:42 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
The scale of this corrupt fraud is quite breath-taking and it puts the mediaeval church's selling of indulgences in the shade.

The facts are staring everyone in the face. The data don't support the theory, simple as that.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 24 December 2015 10:34:49 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
It is my quest that we, the advanced countries of the world, band together and give the $Billions in aid to the needy developing nations of the world who will be inordinately swamped be raptures of now warm, ex-icy water. The UN demands it.

To that end the largest developing countries must receive now. So give to China and India.

After all they have the most poor* and needy**.

C'mon, feel guilty and hand over the readies today to third world leaders who promise not to have Swiss Bank Accounts.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_space_program

** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 24 December 2015 2:18:12 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
I don't know what the answer is but I would suggest everyone watch this YouTube clip to inform yourself of the IPCC and the danger exposed if we follow the mantra blindly. I think some serious questions and answers need to be given in relation to the content as we all have so much in 'play'


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5weFQYBL5w

For some reason I can't turn this into a hyperlink, you will need to copy it and paste into your browser, it is worth the effort
A very, very interesting interview I am sure you all will appreciate it

Cheers Geoff
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Thursday, 24 December 2015 3:07:44 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
This was always the end game. They want all our money!
My suggestion is the Australian Government gives the billions allocated to public service pensions including the political ones. Let's see how that pans out and if it all goes sour, well we can all have a laugh and suggest Centrelink to the PS and politicians.
That is certainly a case of putting one's money where one's mouth is lol!
Posted by JBowyer, Thursday, 24 December 2015 5:15:45 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
The woman in the interview said the IPCC claimed the world was turning into a fireball. I'm not sure Joe Public disagrees. Today for example
http://www.news.com.au/national/cyclone-flood-and-fire-warnings-in-place-across-much-of-australia/news-story/a96d661ddd77403ae4362029d40bcac0

New York which dreams of a white Christmas is currently 21C which is T-shirt wearing weather. If such temperature anomalies keep recurring it will get harder to convince people there is no warming trend.
Posted by Taswegian, Friday, 25 December 2015 6:43:48 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
Weather is not climate. Resist temptation to make it so with dodgy claims about frequency of 'extreme weather events' - and especially 'intensity' of a single EWE.

Just another media scare-story. Newsrooms full of bored folk desperate for some excitement this time of the year.

Relax. Keep cool and carry on. You don't need to suffer from self-induced climate-apocalypse syndrome at Xmas.

But is it not all due primarily to 0.04% carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; most of which is due to human activity? As the Duke of Wellington said: "If you believe that, you'll believe anything."

Climate is, at least as currently defined by WMO,average weather over a 30-year period.

Where were the alarmists, incidentally, when southern Australia - including Adelaide, Melbourne, Canberra - experienced its coldest winter in over two decades this year, with first snow at sea-level in Hobart since 1986; and at a time when Antarctica recorded increased sea-ice - over 7% above its long-term average extent?

As quiet as hibernating mice in a mid-winter field.
Posted by Alice Thermopolis, Friday, 25 December 2015 11:15:12 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
"I'm not sure Joe Public disagrees."

The general view is that climate change is a low order issue...

"But more than seven [ now ten] million people who responded to a recent U.N. global survey ranked climate concerns at the very bottom of their priorities."

http://data.myworld2015.org/

But its easy to be mislead by those making the most noise.

"New York which dreams of a white Christmas...."

The chances of NY getting a white Christmas in any particular year is 7%. Not having one this year or any other means nothing unless you are determined to ignore the data and push the propaganda.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 25 December 2015 11:37:39 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
It's true Tassie had sea level snow on August 3rd. Right now it is 35C in sub-alpine areas and outback style dust devils are whirling above gravel roads. Perhaps some of the emissions abatement budget should be used to educate the public how to interpret this correctly.
Posted by Taswegian, Friday, 25 December 2015 12:42:36 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
And mhaze has got a bookful of statistics to prove it. He has statistics to prove anything. He doesn't have any knowledge, just statistics. He substitutes statistics for knowledge. He doesn't even have to think about things because he has a whole lot of statistics to prove anything that pops up in discussions. He belongs to that new subculture: statistics fetishism. People like maze don't need to go to university and acquire knowledge because to them knowledge is irrelevant because - yes you guessed it - they have a statistic to proven anything.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 26 December 2015 4:38:56 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
Mr O,

When trying to decide if something, say the number of Chinese in Australia, there are several ways to make the evaluation.

One is to look for available data on the question as compiled by reputable people/organisations, examine that data, seek flaws in it, see if others have found flaws in it, check if others have obtained similar data via different methods and then form a conclusion as to the likely number of Chinese in Australia. This is what any learned person would do, I'd think.

The other is to take a stroll around some arbitrary part of the nation and randomly 'assess' how many of the people you pass are Chinese based on criteria that you refuse to discuss.

I'll leave others to decide which is the prefered method.
Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 26 December 2015 7:18:50 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
mhaze,

In your world of the statistically based epistemology people like Marx and Weber and Durkheim along with a plethora of renowned sociologists, historians and anthropologists would all be relegated to the intellectual wastepaper bin. There's a big world of intellectual endeavour that started with Socrates that you have never had contact with and I suppose never will have. But if you're content to see the world as some magical model structured from the numbers and symbols of a statistician's pen then so be it. But for me there is much more to see and experience in the lived in world of human reality.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 26 December 2015 8:28:30 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
Mr Opinion,
The trouble is if you ignore the numbers you end up living in a world of human fantasy.

Marx would almost certainly have done better work if he'd reality checked his hypotheses more. As would many others.

Statistics are not a substitute for knowledge. But knowledge can be derived from statistics. And crucially, statistics can alert us to the errors in what we think we know.
Posted by Aidan, Sunday, 27 December 2015 12:59:08 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Conspiracy theories are rampant, absolute proof not given, does absolute proof exist. The world is in a period of unfamiliar happenings of mega proportions and to do nothing is not an option.
Man has created an over abundance of atmospheric Co2 + the worlds normal supply of Co2, and there is a better than 50-50 chance this is causing climate change that would not normally happen without some other worldly happening to put a massive amount of pollutant into the atmosphere to trigger climate change.
Nature has been compromised to the extent we are responsible for this reaction we are experiencing right now. All indications say Co2 is responsible, we can get off of fossil fuel, but will the level of Co2 diminish or just stabilize. The amount of Co2 being released from ice melt and the oceans giving up its stores of Co2 may be to much for co2 levels to decrease.
The world knew we were headed for climate change twenty years ago, and now the situation is urgent action needs to take place.
Storms, fires, and droughts will continue to upsize until we can get stability in Co2 emissions, by man and man made climate change. We are guaranteed hotter temperatures, colder temperatures, bigger floods and longer droughts, and whatever else climate change has for us, for decades to come and the unknown future after that
Posted by 579, Sunday, 27 December 2015 10:00:38 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
Did you hear that everybody, mhaze reckons Marx didn't make a substantial contribution to knowledge because he didn't know anything about statistics. He probably has the same thing to say about Durkheim and Weber as well as poor old Socrates (which mhaze probably pronounces as so-crates). It's easy to recognise the people who don't have Arts degrees.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 27 December 2015 10:17:19 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
My apologies to mhaze. I just realised after posting my last comment that it was actually Aidan who reckons Marx didn't make a substantial contribution to knowledge. But I think mhaze would probably concur with Aidan. 100% probability there.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 27 December 2015 10:21:04 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
Bravo Aidan. Well said. I have bagged you out enough so it is only fair I praise you when you say something sensible.

Now you only have to apply what you just said to the idea that man-made CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic global warming, to see that the data don't support the theory. And that's before we even start on your faulty assumptions to do with political economy.

MrOpinion,
speaking of epistemology, for a complete demolition and explosion of Marxian theory from the ground up, and using the Socratic method, see "Epistemological Problems of Economics" by Ludwig von Mises. It applies just as much to social sciences in general as to economics btw.

file:///Users/Justin/Downloads/Epistemological%20Problems%20of%20Economics%20(6).pdf

579
You are not engaging, and apparently not understanding, the issues. All you are doing, is endlessly repeating the same old warmist tactic of entering the discussion having assumed everything in your own favour without proof or reason, and when challenged, repeating the cycle. In case you haven't noticed, this does not persuade anyone. On the contrary, it only turns people off the warmists' ideology.

"The world is in a period of unfamiliar happenings of mega proportions and to do nothing is not an option."

You're assuming that governmental action has no costs or is necessarily beneficial. But you can't just enter the debate having assumed this in your own favour. You need to prove it. I have never seen any warmist make even the slightest attempt to understand or state the problem, let alone prove it.

So why don't you try stating it, and we'll see whether you are intellectually capable of getting to square one? (Hint: any quantity you put on one side of the equation, has to be accounted for on the other.)

ant provides a good example of the warmists' intellectual standard. He openly confuses a statutory monopoly with a free market, while implicitly trusting to his understanding of political economy to solve the alleged problem, by politically re-engineering the world's economy and society!

And you wonder why you guys excite fear and loathing?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 27 December 2015 10:39:21 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
Mr O apologises and then proceeds to decide what I do and don't know based on precisely nothing and then to ridicule me for views and knowledge that he has no way of discerning. Quite a man is Mr O.

Afterall, its only to be expected that Mr O would be obsessed with me given that I continually make him look so utterly foolish.

As to Socrates, I'm sure that he discerned that Athens was being overrun by the Mede based on his strolls around the agora. Or perhaps he was obsessed with the way the Boeotians were growing in number after he saw so many of them at Delium.
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 27 December 2015 10:52:01 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
How about you put something up instead of denying everything to date. You do not see change or you do not see the cause, if you do see the cause you do not see the remedy, that is very hard to follow. This is why we have leaders I suspect. People that can agree on a same solution to combat the Climate change. To just say science is not settled is the squibs way out of doing nothing. Science is the best you are going to get. Models do not work, change is progressing to fast to keep up with.
Discussion has been going on for twenty years plus, and skeptics have not offered anything, Nature can only handle so much deviation, there is significant deviation to say the cause is:
Climate change is not caused by man. Suppose you give us your version of who or what is causing it, instead of pushing around the same lines for the past twenty years. Big oil was against any form of climate change, and now they go the other way, have they magically found something in their favor.
Co2 is a glaring cause of climate change no other single item is so noticeable. Future statistics do not exist yet.
Instead of continuously trying to blame it on something that does not exist and not progressing, your best shot is to blame Co2 for this predicament and get with consensus. Your alternative is to tell us what is the matter of eliminating unnatural emissions of Co2, which happens to be the most noticeable change in our atmosphere. Abbott’s alternative of CRAP is no help at all. You do not need an arts degree to see that.
Posted by 579, Sunday, 27 December 2015 11:53:12 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
Here's a 5-minute, down to earth, video on climate change from an unlikely source. No politics or emotional baggage.
https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/what-they-havent-told-you-about-climate-change#.Vc4sj_lViko

It explains the relevant facts. It should give pause for consideration for some of the true deniers posting here - the deniers of the relevant facts.
Posted by Peter Lang, Sunday, 27 December 2015 12:36:01 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
Mr Opinion, I suggest you reread what I actually wrote. Nothing I said could reasonably be taken to indicate I reckon Marx didn't make a substantial contribution to knowledge. FWIW I think he did. However his work was pervaded with misinformation as erroneous assumptions led to erroneous conclusions. When people accepted his work uncritically the results proved worse than useless.

I don't know enough about the work of Weber and Durkheim to supply any useful criticism. And AFAIK nobody even knows whether Socrates knew anything about statistics!

Do Arts degrees really ignore the importance of comparing theories with reality?

________________________________________________________________________________________

Jardine, I have always applied this to AGW. The data does fit the theory, and nearly everyone who understands statistics acknowledges that.

Why do you think satellite measurements show this planet is absorbing more electromagnetic radiation than it's emitting?

Your faulty assumptions with the political economy are really off topic here, but I will get around to discussing them soon. Meanwhile could you please at least try to understand the basics of the arguments you disagree with? For instance, the main principle of fiat currency is that taxation creates a demand for a currency because people require it to pay their taxes. That's NOT AT ALL like saying bank robbery is always needed to give a currency value; bank robbery doesn't decrease the amount of money in circulation, and nor does it create any obligation to use a currency (though ti makes it harder for bank to fulfil its existing obligations).

BTW supplying a link to a file on your own hard drive isn't much use to anyone!
Posted by Aidan, Sunday, 27 December 2015 12:42:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
579,

You said "if you do see the cause you do not see the remedy"

What to you believe is the remedy? This is an important questions, so I hope you''' give me a carefully considered answer.

From my perspective the main reason for skepticism is because the people who are advocating for 'action' cannot justify the 'actions' they are advocating. They seem unaware or not interested in the consequences of the actions they advocate for. This is not rational and not objective. To many people who do understand the risks of climate change and the advocated policies, the costs of the advocated policies greatly exceed the benefits. Given this, it is prudent to be skeptical and to question and thoroughly investigate everything that is relevant to justifying the implementation of the advocated policies. That is prudent, wise and any responsible government should do it. Policy analysis is not something climate scientists have any expertise in. It is not a role for climate scientists. They should stay right out of advocating for policies.

So, please answer my question as a first step.
Posted by Peter Lang, Sunday, 27 December 2015 12:56:18 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
The world is on course for the remedy, or the best remedy that can be ascertained. Get off fossil fuels. The worst part is going to be the twenty year delay since the problem was identified. The era of saying there is no problem or we can’t fix the problem has expired.
To argue about what is causing an obvious fault is unrealistic. Skeptics are continually changing the ways as why this is not happening.
At least we have one voice now to push forward and hopefully claw back some of the lost ground if it is not already past, the time for mending an aging problem.
Over the wasted time we have seen oceans getting warmer and ice melt increasing, which in turn is releasing more and more Co2 into an overloaded atmosphere. To reverse that may even be to late. We need to be around 1960 levels of Co2. Our atmosphere may never see those level’s of Co2 until all ice, permafrost and oceans have cooled, which could take hundreds of years without any major volcanic activity.
To dismiss fossil fuels as an irrelevant cause is a nonsense
Posted by 579, Sunday, 27 December 2015 3:10:18 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
579,

"The world is on course for the remedy, or the best remedy that can be ascertained. Get off fossil fuels. The worst part is going to be the twenty year delay since the problem was identified. The era of saying there is no problem or we can’t fix the problem has expired."

Sory, but that is just silly nonsense. It religion, not science and not objective analysis. It is fools like you that are blocking progress. You haven't the faintest clue what you are talking about, just silly emotional nonsense - just like the gullible fools who follow extremist cult leaders - like this "Jim Jones was best known as the cult leader of the Peoples Temple who led more than 900 followers in a mass suicide via cyanide-laced punch known as the Jonestown Massacre" http://www.biography.com/people/jim-jones-10367607 .

Have you ever considered the consequences of "getting off fossil fuels" without an economically viable alternative? Or don't you care about that.
Posted by Peter Lang, Sunday, 27 December 2015 3:19:11 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
The consequences of getting off fossil fuels is far less Co2 omitting into the atmosphere. So who would let that be a worry, only those with vested interests. Alternatives will only happen now that the world has a direction to lead. Sea level rise and an increases in our atmospheric temperature are the major concerns.
Ice caps have been stable for thousands of years, and now there is a dramatic shift taking place, this has been attributed to the sudden rise in Co2 causing higher global temperatures allowing sea water to heat up. It will remain to be seen if a reversal can take place.
The earths climate has shifted numerous times in the past, and always with a cause. A very predominately cause is volcanic action which was vastly more active in years previous. This time we have a man made culprit, Co2 which has replicated the effects of volcanic action.
Unfamiliar climate happenings are going to challenge us as is without anymore additions
Posted by 579, Monday, 28 December 2015 8:24:40 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
579,

"The consequences of getting off fossil fuels is far less Co2 omitting into the atmosphere. "

Nonsense. Total rubbish. You haven't a clue what you are talking about. As I said you are a fool who believes what your cult leaders tell you without question. Cult followers simply believe - they don't think for themselves - like those who followed Jim Jones. Getting off fossil fuels would cause billions to die.
Posted by Peter Lang, Monday, 28 December 2015 8:30:58 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
We do not need cult leaders preaching impossible dreams to unfortunate persons. We have level headed educated people with consensus to take charge and do the world a favor of pollution clean up.
Climate change and its consequences are known for thousands of years. Ice cores dating back 200 thousand years reveal times and Co2 levels at the time of changes in atmosphere. The same land based time can cross check to tell what the earth was going through in those exact times.
The build up of land will not diminish, but the build up of ice is melting at an increasing rate. Since industrealisation the build up of atmospheric co2 has been steadily increasing, then from 1950 onwards atmospheric concentrations of Co2 have increased dramatically. We can no longer afford to uncontrollably burn fossil fuels.
Power companies were investing in renewable power sources, until they found a friend in parliament. Together with the shutting down of various other renewable projects. We went backwards, both in innovative ideas and projects.
Time is here to do, arguments are over so is procrastinating about what if.
PS: Billions will die the way China is going, the longer term effects will catch up with them
Posted by 579, Monday, 28 December 2015 11:56:36 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
579,

“We have level headed educated people with consensus to take charge and do the world a favor of pollution clean up.”

Ah! And what consensus would that be? The total BS consensus by John Cook. Don’t you research objectively? Do you believe any drivel that suits you? Typical cult follower.

Cooks friends and those who write article for his alarmist web site, Skeptical Science, read 12000 abstracts. They dishonestly manipulated the results to spin and highly disingenuous story. The truth is that the only ‘consensus’, which almost everyone accepts, is that humans are having an effect on the climate, including with human caused GHG emissions. The magnitude is unknown and the consequences are unknown. Less than 0.5% of the abstracts stated that human caused GHG emissions are responsible for more than half the warming. So you don’t miss it – less than 0.5% of the 12,000 abstracts, not 97% of climate scientists. http://judithcurry.com/2015/12/20/what-is-there-a-97-consensus-about/

Richard Tol, 2013, ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis’

“Abstract

A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514002821

As I’ve said three times, 579, you are a gullible, ignorant, fool.
Posted by Peter Lang, Monday, 28 December 2015 12:40:56 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
Dear Peter Lang,

What is your area of expertise?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 28 December 2015 1:29:37 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
I don’t hold with conspiracy theories , Over the top Co2 into the atmosphere is a proven fact of climate change. Ice melt is visibly accelerating. And we know what is causing it.
You are having trouble believing the most obvious of causes, man has had everything to do with climate change. Man has replaced repeated volcanic actions of days gone by burning fossil fuels.
If man is not the cause of climate change who or what is. Suppose you tell us the answer in your words. All you have done is deny every other cause I state. When you read that whole thread everyone is against climate change , but give no reasons. Are the rest of us seeing changes that are not there in your opinion.
Skeptic science is not science it’s a complete denial of any climatic change, or mans involvement
Posted by 579, Monday, 28 December 2015 3:42:16 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
WE KNOW WHAT'S CAUSING CLIMATE CHANGE?

http://www.dailywire.com/news/2071/most-comprehensive-assault-global-warming-ever-mike-van-biezen

See above link. A few of what Mike van Biezen calls "the many scientific problems with assumption human activity is causing “global warming” or “climate change”":

1. Temperature records from around the world do not support the assumption that today’s temperatures are unusual.

2. Satellite temperature data does not support the assumption that temperatures are rising rapidly.

3. Current temperatures are always compared to the temperatures of the 1980’s, but for many parts of the world the 1980’s was the coldest decade of the last 100+ years.

4. The world experienced a significant cooling trend between 1940 and 1980.

6. There is a natural inverse relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels.

7. The CO2 cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global temperature changes.

10. “Data adjustment” is used to continue the perception of global warming.

As for planet's future climate, alas, it is a ‘coupled non-linear chaotic system’; so ‘long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.’ (IPCC Third Assessment Report, 2001, p774)
Posted by Alice Thermopolis, Monday, 28 December 2015 4:17:31 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
Sounds like all of your non events came from the same place. The upswing of Co2 did not take place till 1950 and has gained pace ever since. There is no denying ocean temperatures have risen along with Co2 rise. It takes a rise in temperature to have ice melt, which is gaining pace along with ocean temperature rise.
The temperature of oceans effect our weather patterns, this is why we are experiencing weather events of magnified occurrence.
Climate change models are not correct because change is happening at a faster speed than anticipated. Co2 is the most common cause because of the massive upswing of concentrations since the 1950’s. No other single item shows up so much as Co2, as an atmospheric change.
To totally dismiss Co2 as a factor of climate change is a massive call, which can be cross checked with past events when there was massive amounts of Co2 in the atmosphere, mainly caused by volcanic actions in pre historic times.
A rise in ocean temperatures do not happen without a cause, and that is undercutting the ice caps resulting in sea level rise.
The world will get of burning fossil fuels. There will be resistance from those with vested interests. Sanity will prevail, albeit 22 years to late. World wide pollution has been rampant for far to long, and now causing problems that may never be isolated, mass extinction has happened in past events and no one can guarantee that will not happen again
Posted by 579, Tuesday, 29 December 2015 9:17:21 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
Are any of you actually qualified as scientists? Can I get a show of hands so that I know who to take seriously because a lot of the comments I've read seem like a complete load of rubbish. One might as well be asking John Howard or Andrew Bolt or Tony Abbott for a scientific explanation on the causes and effects of global warming. Is there anybody out there who actually can use science to explain what is happening because I'm sick and tired of seeing ridiculous explanations from people who don't know any science let alone believe they are in a position to debate scientific evidence.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Tuesday, 29 December 2015 3:07:50 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
Mr O my problem is with scientists who whenever they are asked to look at something come up with the same answer. What is needed is more, much more research.
The Victorian Government wasted over one million dollars on a Carp report. All options were printed and, of course, what was needed was more research.
It is always the same, in fact in Eisenhower's famous 1950's speech warning of the Military-Industrial Complex the next paragraph warned of "Research".
This is my biggest problem as scientists will happily balls it all up and pontificate as if they know when they do not know. A triumph of overbearing confidence over their research.
Posted by JBowyer, Tuesday, 29 December 2015 3:41:18 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
Dear Bowyer,

I didn't ask whether or not people like scientists. I asked who among you is a scientist. And I assume by your response that you are not a scientist. Am I correct?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Tuesday, 29 December 2015 4:02:43 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
Others share Mr Opinion's exasperation,including Hilaire Belloc:

Scientists who ought to know
Tell us that it must be so.
One should never, ever doubt
What nobody is sure about.

But a serious chat with this group?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiYZxOlCN10?
Posted by Alice Thermopolis, Tuesday, 29 December 2015 4:24:11 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
Mr O you got me, I confess, I own up I am not a scientist. However like the US president Lyndon Johnson I pride myself that I can tell the difference between Chicken Salad and Chicken !@#$.
Happy now?
Posted by JBowyer, Tuesday, 29 December 2015 6:52:47 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
Dear JBowyer,

I'm not a scientist either. My four degrees are in history, anthropology, sociology, and engineering. So because I am not a scientist I am eager to listen to what scientists have to say on topics like global warming. And after listening to the scientists I am led to believe that global warming is real and that the planet is warming up and that if left unchecked the planet will become too hot to support life.

People like John Howard, Andrew Bolt and Tony Abbott don't believe that global warming is real and they believe that we do not have anything to fear. I think it is dangerous to follow the ideas of Howard, Bolt and Abbott so I guess I'm in the same boat as you in that I too can tell the difference between Chicken Salad and Chicken !@#$.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Tuesday, 29 December 2015 8:08:14 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
But can you tell the difference between 'weather' and 'climate'?

Or between natural variability and (allegedly) anthropogenic 'climate change' and/or 'global warming'?

Or between ideology and science?

Or between a 'projection' and a 'prediction'?

Or between a rock and a hard place?

Time for a change of diet?

Planetary health tips here: www.joannenova.com.au
Posted by Alice Thermopolis, Wednesday, 30 December 2015 10:22:11 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
Dear Alice Thermopolis,

Who are you talking to? What are you talking about? Is this how you want people to see you? Are you a scientist or an anti-scientist?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 30 December 2015 10:49:57 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
Mr O I am against people being paid to research. This is the problem there is no follow up. Flannery said it would probably never rain in Brisbane again and they suffered two major floods. Of course now his predictions are strictly retrospective. Whatever happens it is climate change.
The idiot BOM, scientists and the ABC claim 2015 was the hottest year ever. Of course it was not but they would say it was every where else. The cannot be pinned down because they are all full of it.
Posted by JBowyer, Wednesday, 30 December 2015 5:25:22 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
Dear JBowyer

I believe global warming is real. It just makes plain sense that the increasing rate of burning fossil fuels by an exponentially increasing world population is producing greater quantities of greenhouse gases which in turn cause an increasing warming of the planet. To me having a degree in mechanical engineering it's basic thermodynamics and fluid dynamics.

The debate seems to be between those who fear the effects of global warming especially adverse climate change and those who owing to their belief in conservative politics do not want to have any change that might affect them. I don't see myself as belonging to either group. In my view it is too late to stop the unstoppable and I believe that what we are witnessing is the beginning of a mass extinction process due to increasing global warming making the Earth too hot to support life. There's nothing anyone can do about it. I don't think it will be CO2 etc that will push the the temperature to destructive levels but plain old water vapour will attain a dynamic of its own and will race away unaided by humans in replicating itself as the greenhouse gas that causes the extinction.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 30 December 2015 6:38:55 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
Mr O my challenge is that if we are doomed then sell me your house for $10. This $10 offer is open to anyone who sees us as "Doomed"!
I am not expecting any rush of waterfront property from Flannery or that other Professor Karoly who has a waterfront apartment in Melbourne.
Still here's hoping.
Posted by JBowyer, Wednesday, 30 December 2015 9:17:38 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
Dear JBowyer

Not likely. I'm taking all of my possessions with me to use in the afterlife.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 30 December 2015 11:09:46 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
Just been reading this thread. Mr O, is it your position that instead of reading a thermometer yourself you should ask someone else what the thermometer says? And if on reading the thermometer yourself and finding it has a different temperature from what your substitute thermometer reader told you, you would still accept his or her reading so long as they had a degree in science, and you did not?

Your question about who has a science degree is only relevant if you answer yes to both these questions. But I would hope that you are a sane person, prepared to argue and research your case, and you would regard someone else's observations as only advisory, and you will realise your mistake and withdraw your question on qualifications.

Whether one has a science degree is neither here nor there to whether you are qualified to comment on climate change. It is such a cross-disciplinary area that virtually no one has qualifications in all the areas you would need, apart from an ability to research and analyse, in which case we all have qualifications.
Posted by GrahamY, Thursday, 31 December 2015 12:01:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ad hominem fallacy http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

It is usually those who are gullible, follow cultist beliefs and practist Cult type behaviours that have to resort to ad hominen fallacy instead of debating the substance of the argument.
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 31 December 2015 12:28:43 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
Graham

You do not need a thermometer to understand something strange has been happening lately.

Prior to Christmas, European ski fields had no snow; I'm not sure whether any snow has fallen in the last few days; but, it is winter in the Northern Hemisphere.
A few days ago rain was falling on Arctic sea ice., clearly too warm to be snowing.
A buoy, with a thermometer read a temperature of 1C above freezing after having jumped in temperature by 20C. The buoy is placed in close proximity to the North Pole just less than 5 degrees lower.

Scientists have told us that a warmer atmosphere carries more moisture; the Missouri River has just broken a record, and the Mississippi could very well break the all time flooding recorded record. A Washington Post article suggests the flooding is completely out of season, normally flooding happens when snow is melting or with heavy summer rainfall.
Numerous anomalous weather situations have happened over the last couple of decades.
I do not recall as a young adult 45 years ago constant news bulletins about weather disasters.

Mr Opinion you have a dismal view in relation to extinction.
When in dangerous situations people either freeze or try to do something.
We need to be doing everything possible to mitigate against, and adapt to the future in relation to carbon output.
Posted by ant, Friday, 1 January 2016 8:49:09 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
GrahamY

I have based my assumptions on my training in thermodynamics and fluid mechanics obtained from my degree in mechanical engineering. I am not a scientist so I must leave the measurement of global warming (a thermometer in your words) to the scientists who have the training and knowledge needed for that work.

Dear Peter Lang,

I don't concur with your argument based on ad hominem. Everyone has a motive for his or her action and to understand the action one must also consider the motive. I don't mind being criticised by people who say that my arguments are based on the fact that I have degrees in sociology, history and anthropology.

Dear ant,

I think humankind has become an incurable cancer on the face of the Earth. It's only a matter of time before we extinguish all forms of life on the planet. And I don't think we are looking too far into the future.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Friday, 1 January 2016 10:02:26 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
Opinion,

You have no more understanding of someone else's motives than they have of yours. Your approach to arguing is to use ad hominem fallacy. You don't even recognise it when told (I am surprised you've studied and yer don't know this - it's an indication of how poor our education system has become). Your comment detract from any chance of an informative discussion.

You have not attempted to address the points of fact and relevance to the debate.

You may have several degrees, but all that shows is you can study and pass exams. It doesn't show any commonsense, or expertise in any discipline. I am really surprised, and doubt you are a qualified engineer and certainly not a professional engineer. You have not shown any indication of having developed "engineering judgement" (i.e. common sense developed from experience and from working under the supervision senior engineers over a long career.

Whatever engineering school you went through, you were poorly trained.

I'd suggest you leave aside all your ad hominem comments from now on and focus on arguing the relevant facts. I doubt you can do that. I doubt you've been educated. To me you come across as the worst type of zealot and denier (of the relevant facts). And, yes, I've responded to you in the only kind of language you apparently understand.
Posted by Peter Lang, Friday, 1 January 2016 10:45:01 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 is no consensus among scientists that climate science debate is over and we understand what will happen in the future. The scientists are all over the place and there are enormous uncertainties in every parameter that is important for policy analysis: ECS, future GHG concentrations, Damage function, Impacts, appropriate discount rates, and more.

Following is summary of excellent testimony to the US Congress on the state of climate science:

Professor Judith Curry’s Testimony to the US House of Representatives Hearing on “The President’s U.N. Climate Pledge”

“Major points:

Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change:

• The hiatus in global warming since 1998

• Reduced estimates of the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide

• Climate models predict much more warming than has been observed in the early 21st century

We have made some questionable choices in defining the problem of climate change and its solution:

• The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century.

• Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence.

• Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution

• It has been estimated that the U.S. INDC of 28% emissions reduction will prevent 0.03o C in warming by 2100.

The inadequacies of current policies based on the Precautionary Principle are leaving the real societal consequences of climate change and extreme weather events (whether caused by humans or natural variability) largely unaddressed:

• We should expand the frameworks for thinking about climate policy and provide policy makers with a wider choice of options in addressing the risks from climate change.

• Pragmatic solutions based on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction measures have justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation.”

Read or watch the testimony here: http://science.house.gov/hearing/full-committee-hearing-president-s-un-climate-pledge-scientifically-justified-or-new-ta
Posted by Peter Lang, Friday, 1 January 2016 12:05:05 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
Dear Peter lang,

Doing my engineering degree was an absolute waste of time and I don't care two hoots about being an engineer, good or bad. The best engineers I've run across don't even have degrees; and 50% off those with degrees would rather be doing something else. Engineering is just a trade and personally I don't think it even needs to be taught at university level. And the engineers who are successful in the profession are some of the most nastiest horrible people one could ever expect to meet. The only advantage it has been to me is in allowing me to understand some of the principles used by scientists.

I'm honest and open about my background. What is your background?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Friday, 1 January 2016 1:05:04 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
BIG SCARE OF 1978

"Numerous anomalous weather situations have happened over the last couple of decades. I do not recall as a young adult 45 years ago constant news bulletins about weather disasters." (ant)

Excellent correlation between increasing number of TV stations, media folk over past 45 years and frequency of 'weather disasters'. Global population increased from 4 billion in 1970 to 7.3 billion today, so more people affected too.

Goldilocks weather is a state of mind - not reality.

Rug up and enjoy the BIG SCARE of 1978: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kGB5MMIAVA

And then - as Peter Lang suggests above - read Judith Curry: http://science.house.gov/hearing/full-committee-hearing-president-s-un-climate-pledge-scientifically-justified-or-new-ta

"Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence.
Posted by Alice Thermopolis, Friday, 1 January 2016 1:37:36 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
Mr Opinion

I believe that it won't be long before multitudes will die through climate change but that does not mean extinction.
Currently Ethiopians are having difficulty with little food available. 2016 is meant to be an extremely hot year again. Drought and flooding being bad news for agriculture.

Robert Scribbler places context around what has been occurring in very recent times:

http://robertscribbler.com/2015/12/31/amidst-disasters-around-the-world-top-scientists-declare-links-between-extreme-weather-and-climate-change/v

Peter Lang

Till so far 1997/8 has been the strongest el nino recorded followed by 1982, the latest el nino could very well be the strongest ever recorded, all data is not in yet.
But 2015 promises to be the hottest year recorded which debunks the notion that temperature paused after 1997.

I'm very aware that deniers believe that there has been a conspiracy in relation to how temperature is measured. Conspiracies and professional people don't mix especially when so many disciplines and peak agencies are involved; climate science began almost 2 centuries ago.

Watts made allegations about how temperature was tampered with in the US, he came unstuck:

http://climatecrocks.com/2009/08/19/youtube-reinstates-banned-climate-video/

Berkley an independent recorder of temperature concurs with how temperature is measured in Australia.

Quote:

"One of the most comprehensive reviews of global surface temperature records was the Berkley Earth project, which also included a section on Australia’s data. The review concluded that the evidence of warming in surface temperature records is robust."

From:
https://theconversation.com/bureaus-weather-records-to-be-reviewed-again-sure-why-not-36592

Last year reached the highest temperature ever recorded in comparison to preindustrial times.
Posted by ant, Friday, 1 January 2016 1:41:24 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
Mr Opinion says:

"And the engineers who are successful in the profession are some of the most nastiest horrible people one could ever expect to meet. "

So says Mr Opinion, an ignorant, opinionated, irrational, loony-left ideologue (as clearly demonstrated by some of his comments on this tread).

The opinionated Mr Opinion, who is incapable of arguing a case for his beliefs and substantiating it has some of the most repugnant moral values of anyone. And he continually demonstrates most of the signs of intellectual dishonesty:

http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/
Posted by Peter Lang, Friday, 1 January 2016 2:08:12 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
Dear Peter Lang,

You wouldn't believe how many engineers I have heard say "We're like doctors'. Engineers who have degrees think that because they have done four years at university it means that they have high professional status like medical practitioners. What they don't realise is that it is only engineers who think that.

Again I ask the question: What is your background? I'm starting to think that you are an engineer.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Friday, 1 January 2016 3:02:20 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
Mr Opinion,

You seem to have mental issues – demonstrated by your apparent hatred of people who do not accept your beliefs. Your comments about engineers are clearly you projecting (i.e. your comments describe you, not engineers). I guess the engineers you’ve met clearly and quickly identified you as a fool and told you, bluntly.

I have no intention of answering your off topic questions - they are clearly intended as a diversion.

But since you are so keen on asking about people’s background, perhaps you’d like to set an example: What is your name? What is your professional expertise and experience? Who have you worked for and in what roles? What are you professional memberships? Please post a link to your professional biography including a list your publications.

Imagine what would happen to discussion forums like this if everyone posted off-topic questions as you do continually, wrote irrelevant comments and responded to diversionary tactics like you use to disrupt and avoid engaging in debate of relevant topics. I’d suggest to Graham Young you be banned from posting in future for repetitive trolling.

“10 Signs of intellectual dishonesty” http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/

Troll:

“In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Describes your behaviour perfectly.
Posted by Peter Lang, Friday, 1 January 2016 3:44:06 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 Lang,

I think you have answered my question. I'm convinced that you are only an engineer. That would explain both your lack of knowledge and your nastiness.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Friday, 1 January 2016 4:39:02 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
Alice

I tried to go to the Judith Curry reference...received message "Page Not Found".
It is interesting when Judith Curry responded to the recent paper by James Hansen et al, she made a comment that like James Hansen she saw herself as a maverick. I particularly remembered the comment on the basis of her comparing herself to James Hansen.

As a twenty + year I remember talking with a friend originally from Switzerland who had gone back for a visit. He talked about the jet trails that hadn't been a feature when he had been living in Switzerland. The point being his Swiss mates were telling him that since the jet trails the layman assessment was that the skies were clouding over more quickly. The point being we had quite an interest in climate change in the 70s; most of what I was reading was about climate warming but was aware that cooling was also being considered.

Apparently there were far more papers written about climate warming than cooling.

ExxonMobil has been in the news lately, executives have stated that their scientists working in the 1970s and 1980s held the view of climate warming. Your video seems to be a red herring.

In relation to the media being more active on climate change now compared to earlier times, I'm very aware of a number of situations that have not been generally reported.
Posted by ant, Friday, 1 January 2016 5:49:03 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
For Curry House Testimony 15 April 2015 link, go to:

http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/15/hearing-presidents-un-climate-pledge/

Extract:

"We have made some questionable choices in defining the problem of climate change and its solution:

The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century.

"Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence."

There are: "deep uncertainties surrounding the risks both from the problem and the proposed solutions."

The articulation of a preferred policy option in the early 1990’s by the United Nations has marginalized research on broader issues surrounding climate variability and change and has stifled the development of a broader range of policy options."
Posted by Alice Thermopolis, Saturday, 2 January 2016 10:41:40 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
I went to the new reference you gave, Alice.

Very recently I found this reference in relation to how temperature stands within a bell shaped graph. Only observed temperatures have been used; that is, what is being discussed in the film clip is based on data, and placing it in a graphic form.

http://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/presentations

The second clip discusses what has been left out of the Paris deliberations; the one I'm fully aware of is the Arctic. The French had indicated that due to resources and questionable country boundaries nations wanted to impose; the Arctic would take up too much time to closely deliberate on.
The Arctic is in a mess, not helped by the multi year ice flowing down the Fran Strait and exceptionally high temperatures and savage storms experienced this current winter so far.

But, it is the bell curved graphs that do not provide much comfort based on data and not opinion.
Posted by ant, Saturday, 2 January 2016 12:00:39 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All

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