qanda/Poirot,

After an initial “toe in the water” of reality, you’ve once again retreated into your comfort zone of “your science” and started trading links again, predominantly between yourselves as you seek solace from each others “beliefs”.

You seem unable to recognize the reality that the only remnants of global responses to CAGW are your links to your science.

1.0 Global Agreement: The only global emissions cap and governance agreement was Kyoto. It expired on December 31, 2012.

2.0 Global emissions trading: The CCX collapsed in December 2010, by November 2012, Barclays US Carbon trading Desk closed, the UN, EU and NZ markets were trading at just off their all time lows at A$5.60, EU, UN backed credits A$8.45 and NZ trading A$4.10. By January 2013 these markets had collapsed a further 40% with NZ trading at US$ 2.00. This market was trading at $45 in 2007 and is now at less than $7 globally. It has collapsed.

3.0 Renewable energy industry: RENIXX is the key international stock market index for renewables and tracks the worlds top 30 largest renewable energy companies based in the USA, EU and China. This market is down 90 percent since 2007.

4.0 Your “Scientific” advisors to governments: The USA’s EPA, NZ’s NIWA, CSIRO, CRU, Pen State University, IPCC and Met Office are all providers of scientific advice to governments. So how come every one of these “scientific” providers are facing litigation and FOI requests against keeping their science secret? You’ve already dismissed this as a “denialist propaganda plot” Ahem? Can we conclude you agree it is true but just not the fault of your “scientists”?

5.0 Your “science”: If the science is so good, why can’t it convince the all the international infrastructure listed above, that was created to support your “science” in the first place?

All the above global response mechanisms are gone which leaves only one element, your links to your “science”. And you call me a denier?

You could of course continue to do a Monty Python and convince us that this is not a “dead parrot”?

spindoc,
1.0 I cab't believe you are still going on about this. The Kyoto agreement has been extended until 2020. All parties that originally signed it are still signed on. A google search for 'Kyoto protocol' will turn that up in the first three links. Your ignorance of this is astounding.

2.0 A lot of markets collapse for various reasons, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_market_crashes
However I cannot find one of them attributable to 'bad science'. Perhaps you could point out another case where that has happened. Most collapses I can see are due to economic, not scientific reasons.

3.0 See above

4.0 Sharing of datasets and methods has generally be an ongoing process in science. Most of the datatsets used have already been shared in open databases. The multitude of FOI requests are mostly time wasting exercises and requests for private information, such as emails. Perhaps I could ask you for all your emails relating to the terms 'climate change'?

5.0 The 'international infrastructure' is tun by economists and business people. Capital goes where it will get the best return, this is not generally predicated on science. I remember a massive dotcom bust, where their markets collapsed as well. Did that mean that computer science and internet amerkets were somehow bad science and 'wrong'? Oh please.

So, if the markets are the arbiter of what is true and 'real', then if the RENIXX suddenly jumps and starts increasing over the next decade, you will become a 'believer'?

spindoc,

Regarding denialists abusing FOI and instituting litigation, two words sum it "frivolous and vexatious".

I also find it fascinating that the denialists on this thread are criticising the use of the word "science" when discussing the issue of climate change.

Accurate scientific data and description is the last thing they're interested in.

They can't disprove the scientific aspect so they resort to contorting every other aspect at hand - and invent some as well.

Michael Mann coined the term the "Serengeti Strategy" where "no-science skeptics" isolate and pick off climate scientists one by one...and the abuse of FOI and litigation are examples of this strategy.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/12/06/freedom-information-laws-used-climate-sceptics-rifle-through-scientists-daily-emails

Bit of a larf, Poirot?

I’ll tell you what’s a bit of a larf;

Spindoc enters the fray with:

“What are the international regulatory and governance processes now that Kyoto has lapsed?”

I answer with:

>> Actually, it hasn’t – so there's your first lie, I mean spin-doctored-assertion.

On 8 December 2012, at the end of the 2012 UNFCCC Conference, an agreement was reached to extend the Protocol to 2020 and set a date of 2015 for the development of a successor document, to be implemented from 2020.

You could have looked it up yourself Barry, but no, you just want to demonstrate how childish and churlish you are - well done. <<

The “denier” fires back:

“Ah! Yummy qanda/Poirot.

So Kyoto has not lapsed? Really? Now I thought it expired on December 31, 1012. So if as you say it has not lapsed, who might we ask are the signed up member States?”

The “denier” is unable to help himself and regurgitates again:

“1.0 Global Agreement: The only global emissions cap and governance agreement was Kyoto. It expired on December 31, 2012...
… All the above global response mechanisms are gone which leaves only one element, your links to your “science”. And you call me a denier? ”

Not only is Barry Spinks a “denier”, he is a complete fool. He can’t even do some basic fact checking (as Bugsy has done).

Yep, spindoctor is what I call a bit of a larf Poirot … wasted space and a waste of time.

For Barry Spinks

I will type this slowly, try and keep up:

In Doha, Qatar, on 8 December 2012, the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol was adopted. The amendment includes:

• New commitments for Annex I Parties to the Kyoto Protocol who agreed to take on commitments in a second commitment period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2020;

• A revised list of greenhouse gases (GHG) to be reported on by Parties in the second commitment period; and

• Amendments to several articles of the Kyoto Protocol which specifically referenced issues pertaining to the first commitment period and which needed to be updated for the second commitment period.

On 21 December 2012, the amendment was circulated by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting in his capacity as Depositary, to all Parties to the Kyoto Protocol in accordance with Articles 20 and 21 of the Protocol.

http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/doha_amendment/items/7362.php

Now Barry, what part are you denying?

quanda>> The Global Mean Sea Level is rising;
so on and so forth.<<

Sea level rising everywhere...except in Sydney harbour it would seem, explain that tiger.

Poirot>> Michael Mann coined the term the "Serengeti Strategy" where "no-science skeptics" isolate and pick off climate scientists one by one...and the abuse of FOI and litigation are examples of this strategy<<

Abuse of FOI....P?

Abuse of an indoctrinated and biased media more like it.

After the unraveling of the lie that was the basis for the "Global Warming" scare campaign, the spin gurus then changed the terminology from “global warming” to “climate change”, new game, new name.
The numbers (models) were manipulated to give an outcome that did not materialize. Not just one scientist or team fabricated the truth; they all lied with mental giants like Al Gore leading the indoctrination of a nation.

The transparently self serving imbecile Gore like the imbecile Flannery did not practice what he preached. His home was lit up like a Xmas tree 365 days a year, he added more lights as he told us to turn ours off. Just like Flannery buying WATERFRONT property a few years back….give me a break P, can’t you find “real” conservation guru’s to follow?
You believe what they tell you P, I will look out the window, if the water is lapping at the door I will let you know.