Spin, deny and lie all you like Barry but the Kyoto Protocol did not lapse, end or expire on 31/12/12.

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.

.

sonofgloin

Listen kitten, Fort Dennison is not the centre of the universe - GMSL is rising.

The UNFCCC is a sticky place as I've said. Thing is kitten, it don't and can't change the science. Something you and all the other conspiracy theorists round here just can't accept.

As to CSG, if only you knew - what group are you in?

Btw, Flannery’s home stands many metres above the Hawkesbury River with steeply rising banks. His house will not be impacted by a one metre sea level rise.

qanda, you say “The Kyoto Protocol did not lapse, end or expire on 31/12/12”. Rubbish.

The UNFCCC statement of 8 December 2012, is true but as super sleuth Bugsy includes, “the amendment will enter into force (only) for those Parties having accepted it on the ninetieth day after the date of receipt by the Depositary of an instrument of acceptance by at least three fourths of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol."

Depository date December 11, 2012. Plus 19 days is December 30, 2012. As stated, At least “three fourths the of the original Kyoto signatories” must sign to activate the amendment before December 31, 2012 or Boom! “Status: Not yet in force:” “Current Status: Parties: 0”

If you three cannot comprehend plain English, no wonder you are still “feeling” what is written rather than actually reading it. Kyoto lapsed by default December 31, 2013.

Poirot, you’re an absolute gem.

I never realised what the problem was. I seem to have screwed the entire global response to CAGW because I failed my “British sitcom analogies” test. Sorry about that.

In addition, as you so astutely point out, failure of the response to CAGW is caused by? Contortions and spin, linguistic spin, alteration from one descriptor to another, conservative/skeptic camp strategies, frivolous and vexatious litigation, con-artists and the term "climate change" being too soft.

I’m so sorry Poirot; all this time I thought it was “your science” that was causing the problem.

Can you please send me some more of those “these are my other excuses” links?

I need to send them to all those countries that are refusing to sign a Kyoto replacement, the UNFCCC, the IPCC, Met Office, CSIRO, CRU, NIWA, renewable industry stock exchange, emissions trading markets and the US EPA. I’m sure they would be really interested because I have this sneaky feeling that they are till working on “their science”.

I could be wrong Poirot, but you know how silly I can be on these matters, but you really should write to them all yourself and get them on the right track.

Thanks heaps.

Well it seems that neither qanda nor Poirot are prepared to defend their assertions that there is one 'the science'. They want to believe that there is a consensus and pointing out otherwise is so unheard-of within their circle and therefore it can't be countenanced. Oh well, closed minds are difficult to reach.
To be fair qanda has an inclination that the assertion that there is 'the science' might be a tad of an exaggeration and so asserts that " I generally enclose the term with inverted commas". Well checking this thread the term is never so qualified - but I guess in some circles asserting something to be so is the same as believing it is so.

qanda asserts :"I can list 1,000's against your 4 [ scientists]".

Well actually you couldn't - at least not here because of the 350 char limit. I mentioned 4 names from the multitudes who are available but space limits preclude listing those multitudes. And besides I wasn't postulating a contest of numbers, simply pointing out that there were many eminently qualified scientists who demure from what you childishly call 'the science'.I know its hard for a warmist to get this but science isn't decided by a popularity vote. Its decided by the data. I don't care how many people say we are warming due to CO2 when the data plainly shows we haven't warmed for a decade and a half despite significant CO2 increases. The data is the only one who gets a vote here. And besides, if you want to run it as a popularity contest who gets a vote. Are statisticians allowed to vote? Are economists? Solar scientists? Astrophysicists? etc etc. All of them were excluded from Poirot's stupid 97% survey.

Its more than a little interesting that the so-called consensus wants to assert that there is 'the science' which is settled. It is they who want to close down any prospect of debate. Is it because increasingly the data and therefore the debate refuses to conform to their prejudices?

I have to say how fascinating it is to watch denialists in action....

"No warming for 15/16 years (take your pick)".

"Warmists say 'the science' is settled".

"Heaps of eminently qualified "skeptic" scientists".

mhaze - "..The data is the only one who gets the vote here..."

Well...cough!...splutter!...ahem

The very point is that the "data' is there - only to be roundly ignored and/or disparaged by denialists.

Denialists reject the "data" from climate scientists.

That's why they have to stoop to their spurious strategies.

Nice little cherry-pick (the "skeptic's ultra-specialty) about the term "the science".

"THe science" is shorthand for the data and expertise that "skeptics" abhor, much preferring the Lord Monckton's of this world tapping away on their PC's providing amateur "science" on Microsoft Excel, while with his other hand putting the finishing flourishes on his latest conspiracy theory.

I particularly enjoy a game of "whack-a-mole-skeptic style" on the weekend.

There's not a neo-cortex in sight amongst my opponents.

It's that old warm familiarity when dealing with the "skeptics' on OLO. I get the feeling you've received attention from these guys - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M68GeL8PafE

(They don't have "the science" either :)

Nothing like an amateur doing an experts job.

Here's an institute with long ties to tobacco disinformation.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute which describes itself as "Non-profit, non-partisan, research advocacy institute dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government"....that it serves "as both a 'think-tank'--creating intellectual ammunition to support free markets--and an advocacy organisation--putting that ammunition to use in persuasive ways."

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute

Here's another "institute" called the "American Tradition Institute" which describes itself as a public policy research and educational foundation...."part of a broader network of groups with close ties to energy interests that have long fought greenhouse gas regulation..."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Tradition_Institute

Here's a man who is both a senior fellow at CEI and the "director of litigation" at the ATI's law centre.

http://www.desmogblog.com/chris-horner

Here's his latest bog at WUWT on FOI:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/16/another-document-cache-from-noaa-via-foi/

And you guys reckon it's all about transparency.

It's all about vexatious litigation and frivolous FOI demands by groups who represent vested interests in maintaining the status quo.

A "Director of Litigation" says it all.

The word science comes from the Latin "scientia" meaning knowledge.
There is no alternative knowledge either we know something or we don't.
That knowledge can be divided into observations (data), and explanations of that data.
Now there is a vast amount data that we can not explain but nevertheless there is a lot that we can. The best test of any explanation is that it can make useful predictions. Climate science is able to make useful predictions.

The process that skeptics use is to concentrate on the areas that are not perfectly understood and then claim that we don't understand anything.

In climate science a number of facts are well established. First and foremost is the means by which the earth warms and cools.

1 Sunlight in the form of visible light heats the earth's surface.

2 The warm surface heats the atmosphere

3 The atmosphere cools by emitting long wave radiation (heat) to space.

4 Greenhouse gases interfere with the cooling process by absorbing long wave radiation.

These are the basic observations. The only question that remains is, how much warming is likely, if we continue to increase the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

The calculation based on the best estimate, is that we must radically reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases especially CO2, if we are not to cause warming in excess of 2 Deg C globally.

There is virtually no wriggle room, despite the claims of those who that stand to lose, by moving to a low carbon economy.