Dnicholson, Dearest Margaret,

“we must not waste time and energy DISPUTING the IPCC's report or debating the right machinery for making progress”
Recognises a UN IPCC report is the starting point, not the conclusion to debate.

UN does not represent any individual, it has no human constituents. It is merely a far from perfect talkfest with bureaucrats who submit papers to a general Assembly for debate, ratification or veto.

In civilised society the administration of government is by the bureaucrats.

But policy is decided by the elected representatives of the people (politicians).

The IPCC are mere bureaucrats, empowered to advise but not to decide policy.

“North and South, East and West. All of us have to play…”

She would contest under “Kyoto” for the obvious reason, the developed “West” is seen to subsidise the undeveloped “East”,
Question, why is the east undeveloped? – maybe all those years of “socialist” nirvana held them in a moribund state.

So “Oh give it break Col”

The type of government which Margaret Thatcher ran and which I support, is the type where debate is empowering.

It is only those with the weak arguments who seek “a break”, for they know they lack the ability to argue their point rationally.

So, NO, I will not acquiesce to your bully tactics, which attempt to shout down dissent and seek to impose conformity to your personally chosen view.

This latest “Socialism by Stealth” is merely a more acceptable face than that of Lenin, Stalin and Brezhnev, however, it is just as corrosive and oppressive as old communism.

More Margaret quotes, since you seem so keen on her:

"Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs, because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited."

Today it is “climate change”

Want to get serious?

Remember Kyoto / Bali seek to impose a restriction on nations

"To be free is better than to be unfree - always. Any politician who suggests the opposite should be treated as suspect."

Gore is decidedly “Suspect”

As I have pointed out on other threads, the global warming issue is a scam. It is created most probably by U.S intelligence in order to:

1. Distract the world's people's focus in order to maintain global stability.

2. Slow down competing economies in order to allow the U.S to make up relative ground which it lost financing the IRAQ war. (Although the scam started late 80s, it has intensified just recently to ridiculous proportions, coincidentally just when attention to IRAQ and terrorism significantly decreased.)

Americans like words like "Protocol" and "validate", and sound bites like "IPCC" (Americans are acronym fanatics). (The "CC" at the end of "IPCC" is particularly effective: something like the famous "555" phone numbers we all remember from U.S. sitcoms). So you can bet your bottom dollar that all the sound bites have emanated from a U.S source. The Americans are marketing experts: no-one else comes within a bull's roar of them in this area.

In line with this, it is hillarious to see that:

1. Japan (effectively a U.S-Asia satellite, and where KYOTO is!!) has not come on board.
2. Although a U.S former vice president is the main voice for the current scam, the U.S has not come on board.
3. The U.S has huge investment and interest in China, and China have not come on board.

Honestly you people are naive. There were films in the 1950s about the world frying. Nothing has changed. Same ol' story.

The so-called 'scientists' contributing to the issue, are making use of the fact that no one scientist's contribution can provide a definitive picture. That is, they are effectively using the age-old "argument from silence", by revelling in the plethora of contributions which cannot possibly be correlated into any definitive picture. They know this, but are so self-centred they just don't care: as long as they can jump on the band wagon and make a buck.
Scientists, like any other profession, are not exempt from Sturgeon's law, which states: "95% of anything is crap".

"Remember Kyoto / Bali seek to impose a restriction on nations"

Col, yes, because if we don't place modest restrictions on the amount of CO2 emissions we emit now, then we place enormous restrictions on future generations who will not have the freedom to enjoy the advantages of the temperate climate and manageable sea-levels that we have now.

Thatcher was at least quite sensible enough to recognise that for the sake for the environment and human health, some restrictions have to be put on what businesses were allowed to do, otherwise we'd still be dying from lead poisoning, putting up with constant sooty buildings and smoggy skies, restricted from being able to spent time outdoors due to a severely depleted ozone layer etc. etc. This has zero to do with socialism and everything to do with ensuring that future generations have the freedom and liberty to enjoy a safe, clean and habitable planet. It's a fact of life that small sacrifices now are often necessary to avoid drastic consequences later on - surely as an accountant you would have no trouble recognising that truism.

And, er, Liberty, nice theory, but the IPCC has been around since 1988. Indeed the models from that period have generally done a good job of predicting the temperature rises right up to this year. That's some impressive conspiracy - prepared 15 years in advance of the Iraq invasion.

Wizofaus/dnicholson (so much “opinion” that you need two logons, seems to me you are less than “democratically” motivated)

Would you accept two votes in an election to everyone elses one?

“because if we don't place modest restrictions on the amount of CO2 emissions we emit now …blah,”

Accept the Thames waterway was so polluted in 16th century that parliament vacated the building in UK summer (hence the recess) because of the stink and since then, in more modern times, the Thames has recovered to a point it now supports fish populations.

I accept burning UK sulphurous coal produced Norwegian acid rain. German factories of the Ruhr did similar to Czechoslovakia’s forests and something needed to be done about it.

However, solutions were achieved by governments acting on fact and applying rules universally across their populations.

Solutions were not achieved by a non-democratic UN seeking to impose disproportional measures on different peoples based on some spurious notion of the level of development. Such inequitable burdens are socialist in nature, akin to taxing the able to subsidise the less able.

We repeatedly see how socialist notions fail.

Making the rich poorer has never made the poor richer.

Solutions are based on known science. They were not based on speculation promoted by the egoism of bureaucrats hell bent on imposing their individual demands on the world.

Projects undertaken by the UN reflect legendary corruption. I would have no greater faith in the administration of a carbon credit scheme than Iraq’s oil for food program. I see more corruption in carbon trading than was experienced in the EEC olive oil management, which was hijacked by the Italian Mafia or the perversion of commerce by EEC selling butter mountains to Russia at less than production cost, whilst shoppers in UK in 1970’s were forced to pay exorbitant prices, double what they were before joining the EU

To “ensuring that future generations have the freedom and liberty to enjoy a safe, clean and habitable planet.”,

Leave that to capitalism market forces to invent the solutions (they will anyway), forget this pseudo-scientific socialist inspired fear campaign.

GrahamY,

Satellite Gravity Measurements Confirm Accelerated Melting of Greenland Ice Sheet.

J. L. Chen, Center for Space Research, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA.
C. R. Wilson, Jackson School of Geosciences, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, TX 78712, USA.
B. D. Tapley, Center for Space Research, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA.

The actual paper is here,

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5795/1958?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&andorexacttitleabs=and&fulltext=grace+satellite&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

The conclusion states unequivocally that;

“ice loss has accelerated in recent years and is independent of uncertainty in PGR (post glacial rebound) effects, because, regardless of magnitude, PGR should contribute a constant rate to time series of any length. (REPEAT please)

GRACE clearly detects a rate change in the most recent period, suggesting a contribution of about 0.54 mm/year to global sea level rise, well above earlier assessments.” (REPEAT please)

If you really want to debate the science, you will have to read the full subscription paper – with one caveat; please don’t distort the science by taking it out of context.

My argument – OLO is not the place to do it, due to word, post and time limits.

I said, based on some work from GRACE, it now appears some of the IPCC’s AR4 findings, in some cases, are too conservative. My reason for commenting was initially based on David Holland’s assertions in his article.

I also said;

Ocean temperatures are warming faster and deeper than reported;
The Greenland, Himalayan and Antarctic ice-sheets are melting faster than originally expected;
Water loss in the Murray/Darling system is more likely to be associated with climate change than drought;
Siberian tundra collapsing over a wider area;
Arctic sea-ice diminishing at a faster rate than thought, etc.

You asked for citations and I finally come back with a flippant remark about a *clearing house* for scientific papers/journals and a coral reef citation. I am sorry this was construed the wrong way – surely you see my point?

Thing is … there are more and more studies confirming the effects and impacts of global warming, and GRACE is only part of this process.

cont

cont

No more games Graham.

I would agree *On Line Opinion* is a great site for discussing things. However, given there is a difference between opinion and debate, I don’t think OLO is a great site for scientific debate, because of the aforementioned constraints (OLO for me is an ad hoc release valve).

On OLO, I particularly get frustrated by ‘wanabes’ who haven’t got a clue or by people who inadvertently (not so bad) or worse, deliberately distort the science.

Those involved in any of the sciences related to, or impacted by, global warming or climate change I would suggest, have other things to do and proper forums to do it in.

Now Graham, as far as “switching and baiting” …

You want me, to expose myself, to all and sundry out there!?
Graham, it reminds me of a school boy saying behind the toilet – “you show me yours and I’ll show you mine.”

Besides, even if I had a Nobel in physics or was part of the IPCC assessment team (which I don’t and which I am not) – nothing I say on OLO or in private is going to change your mind. So please, let’s keep our pants on.

By the way, again … you suggested “that loss of ice (Antarctic) is just as likely to be linked to lack of precipitation as to increased temperature.”

“I'd like to see citations for what YOU claim.”

Using your words, you switch/baited me; I’m switch/baiting you – what is the difference (apart from the fact that this is your site, and I am only a participant)?

PS. I assume/hope there will be some articles on the Bali climate change conference.