UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy#ixzz2fUeVygG2.

The headline in a EU paper of high respect.

A number of EU countries including Germany, Hungary & the UK are all trying to stop the latest IPCC report admitting that there has been no global warming for the last 15 years.

It would appear that their, & the UNs con job is finally falling apart, as some scientists are belatedly growing a back bone, & refusing to go along with the fraud.

Perhaps the scientists are ready to retire, rich on climate research grant money, or perhaps they are no longer prepared watch the destruction of the western world, & their kids future by the UN using the climate fraud.

What ever it is, the IPCC is leaking like a colander as scientists refuse to have the results rewritten falsely by governments who don't like the facts. That they have allowed it in the past is bad, but that they are now standing up against the politicians is great.

Scientists involved with the IPCC have for years rolled over, & let the politicians rewrite the reports, totally ignoring the science, but it looks like they are about to stop that right now.

The politicians may find they have to bring foreword their retirement plans as the scope of the con job starts to unfold.

I don't think our ABBOTT can claim responsibility, but as the first Polly with the guts to sack a "climate commissioner", effectively saying out loud, climate change is CR4P, has us leading the world. Go Tony you good thing.

Now lets stop building these fool windmills, making companies like General Electrics huge profits, & get back to sanity.

'Go Tony you good thing' ?
Really?

The only reason Abbott does not believe in climate change is because his religion and his invisible god supposedly don't believe in it.
He, and all the far right conservatives, believe that only their god can cause climate change.

As it happens, I don't believe us humans can have any effect on the climate.
There is one certain thing in our world, and that is that the climate has always changed over the years, no matter what us mere humans do or don't do.

I agree that a tax should be put on companies that produce pollution, but not because it causes climate change, but because pollution has a detrimental effect on human health.
.

Hazza, you’re off the planet with this stuff!

You can’t be sure that climate change is some almighty hoax. The chances are, despite the occasional reference you find to indicate otherwise, that it is very real indeed.

And as I’ve said to you a whole bunch of times on this forum: if you are not sure, you should err on the side of caution. Which basically means being on the same side as the ‘warmists’!

You should be supporting all measures to reduce the use of fossil fuels and switch to renewables.

What I don’t get --- and again I’ve put this to you a whole bunch of times without ever getting a meaningful response --- is that you can be concerned about population growth and strongly onside with me on that issue, but not at all concerned about our grossly unsustainable use of fossil fuels… and at an ever-increasing rate!

Even if you think climate change is grossly overstated, you should still be supporting the same things anyway!

That is: we should be developing alternative energy sources and weaning ourselves off of our addiction to fossil fuels, striving to improve efficiencies, and stopping the demand from ever-increasing.

It would appear that you can appreciate the last of these three basic requirements, but completely not appreciate the others!

IDNC! – it does not compute!

Luddy old mate, it is time for you to come out from behind your self imposed shield, the one you are using to avoid seeing the truth. It is not an occasional reference, but every meaningful bit of research to appear in some years.

Everything coming from the IPCC, & EAU for years has been nothing but concocted rubbish, trying to defend the no longer defensible. Open your mind, & you can come to no other conclusion. Climategate 2 left nothing for the hoaxers to hang their hat on. Only those who don't want to see this, you included unfortunately, can do a three monkeys act & ignore the facts.

You are too smart to continue this way.

Yes I know you want to use Global warming as a hook to hang your sustainability argument, but that is a mistake. If you want to argue sustainability, do it on it's own strength. Hanging it on a flawed concept, overblown by those who want to use it with another axe to grind, in wealth redistribution, is not going to help your cause.

Global warming is finished. It is still running around, but only like that chook you accidently let go, after chopping it's head off. Associating your dream with it is only going to degrade your concept, to sink along with the fraud.

So mate, have a look at JoNova, WUWT, Tallbloke's Talkshop, & Judith Curry. Argue with them, they won't delete you like warmist sites delete those who query them, then come back & argue with me. You know I'll argue any time.

On that renewables front Luddy, I'm right offside.

Now we definitely know CO2 is not a warming agent, we should use our coal to fuel cheap energy. That & our minerals is about all Oz has going for it.

In fact you would have more chance talking me out of coal with the argument that CO2 is a coolant, rather than having a green house effect. It is used as a refrigerant, & is perfectly capable of conducting heat into the upper atmosphere to be more easily lost. There have been a couple of interesting papers on this effect, & on it's ability to intercept & dissipate quite a bit of the suns radiation. The more honest science on this is about to be heard, & could actually damn CO2 more than the global warming fraud.

I hope I'll be around long enough to see where this all actually goes. I'd really like to know.

When it comes to ethanol & biodiesel, these are a disaster in every way, environmentally, economically & socially, I'm sure you'd agree. They even produce more CO2 than hydrocarbons, so no help to the greenies either.

The only thing wind & solar have been good for has been to enable Obama to slip a few billion of taxpayer money to his Crony capitalist mates without getting locked up, & to make General Electrics even richer. Same huge cost as ethanol & biodiesel, more total pollution than conventional power production, & even more of that plant fertiliser CO2.

So while you could win me on Hydro, & nuclear, the other stuff is just another con, hung on global warming, & about to fall over, as the taxpayer learns how they have been had.

I'm sure we will come up with alternatives, before they are actually needed, & it won't be hot rocks either, although that sounds like a fun way to spend a winter Saturday afternoon. None of the stuff being touted today is anything but pie in the sky, & a good way of separating the poor bloody taxpayer from their hard earned.

There is no suggestion that AGW is a myth, Hasbeen.

Better to read the whole thing. Choose to translate to English at http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227

The term "de facto" is in reference to a world economy based around the resultant effect of an emissions offsetting, not the intent of some Fabian plot.

"Basically, it is a big mistake to discuss climate policy separated from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we do not have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves under our feet - and we must settle only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no way around the fact that a large part of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil. "

Something to add from Ottmar Edenhofer:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-economics-of-climate-change-the-goal-is-to-change-course-not-slow-down-a-588203.html

Hazza, you’re avoiding the all-important point – even if climate change is a complete hoax, we should be basically doing the same stuff anyway!

We’ve got to diversify our energy base and cure ourselves of our total addiction the fossil fuels, especially oil in the short term.

In fact, your great insistence that AGW is BS really is most unfortunate. Surely you realise that this is just playing straight into the hands of the endless-growth antisustainability merchants of doom!

There really does seem to be the biggest contradiction in your thinking that I have ever encountered with anyone on this forum – your concern about population growth and hence endlessly increasing consumption and other utterly unsustainable factors just sits at enormous odds with your assertion that we can keep on burning oil, gas and coal at the same old unfettered rate for a long time to come, with no negative consequences!

Really, I think you need to step outside of the rather narrow insistence that AGW is all some giant hoax and start looking at the total picture of a sustainable planet, and sustainability at all the levels below that; in Australia and each region, city and town.

Sorry but if telling the truth makes me rude so be it.
Hasbeen comes armed with that special view only he and his views count.
And avoids like an iceberg in his sailing days anything not supporting his views.
So in my opinion, not based on the droppings of shock jocks but true research, he has no idea.
The Leader of the United States within days of this threads birth reminded us of its importance and warned of the consequences of an Abbott style no action action.
*This subject is to play a massive role in the Abbott first term*
It alone may yet put Turnbull in the PM chair.
I contend no evidence has ever been put that *no global warming has taken place in that time*
In fact my view of the report says it told us the increase was less than predicted.

Luddy you say we must "diversify our energy base and cure ourselves of our total addiction the fossil fuels", but give absolutely no reason for this. It sounds rather like unthinking green policy, designed to damage western economies for not much more than a dislike of the average citizen living well.

You will have to provide some good reason for this if you want to be taken seriously. The continual rubbish in trying to prevent the harvesting of hydrocarbons is just that, straight rubbish, with no good reason ever given.

How many con jobs like An Inconvenient Truth, & burning water can you let go, & still believe the theory? You must be able to see that if they had any true evidence they would use it. Don't these cons make you even a little doubtful?

From where I stand it looks like elites with sour grapes, hating to see checkout chicks getting it too good.

Belly old mate, my post was regarding the attempt to suppress the facts by governments that have leapt on the global warming fraud to rip money off the public, & enrich cronies. There is no question that these are facts, hell even the UK meteorology people are admitting it.

To suggest anyone should pay any attention to Obama, the greatest catastrophe to befall the US since the civil war is ludicrous.

If you can't see that they would use evidence of actual CO2 caused warming if they had it, you are just not looking at the facts. After spending billions trying to prove CO2 is the cause, they have nothing but their computer predictions, with their garbage in garbage out.

And mate, it really is time to get used to the idea of Abbott as our next long term PM. He has seen the correct side of the debate, & will only get stronger as the truth becomes obvious to all but greenies.

Hasbeen you and I at best, are laymen.
I read any thing I can about the subject.
And yes, in doing so read bull crap, from both sides.
I truly and honestly hold the view that greenish painted fools are an issue.
Again strongly believe they do more harm than good to the things they leach like grab on to.
But am confident, know its hard to cop but firmly think, self interested super rich are funding the its crap case.
I believe in man made climate change.
To that a separate but related issue, needs us to look closer, we are polluting our world fast each year.
So too think Abbott even in his own party has those who share my view not his.
Did you hasbeen ever sail in to one of those rafts of rubbish?
Not climate change but watch them grow how could ever ever ignore that we just may be reshaping our climate just as we are reshaping our world?
My point about the red Indians, painted fools, is how many normal folk do not just ignore them?

Hi folks,
It looks like someone has been telling porkies again.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/09/global-warming-stalls-climate-scientists-fiddle-temperature-record/
Not that Tim or Peter Carrot would fudge the facts, well perhaps not, well unless it was necessary to shore up the arguments.

Hasbeen:
I would just like to ask you if you are being paid for your denialist arguments or are you really stupid?

I am a sckeptic, That means I am not convinced that AGW is real.
It does not mean that I "Know" that it is false, it means that I
suspect that it is false.

On that basis I think we should suspend all expenditure on CO2 suppression.
However we will need alternative sources of energy.
Already we have seen the decline of conventional oil causing the
exploitation of unconventional oil, deep sea, tar sands, shale etc etc.
The mixing of these oils is pushing up the pump prices.
The well head costs for conventional is around $40 a barrel.
The well head costs for unconventional is around $90 to $100 a barrel.

This is the cause of increasing pump prices. As conventional declines
the ratio changes and the price must rise.
Automatically the price rises to the maximum we can afford.
This is the effect of peak oil being history.

The same is just starting with coal, In most parts of the world
coal seams are getting more expensive to mine.

This is the discussion that should replace AGW arguments.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/09/willis-eschenbach-caught-lying/
There ya go Chris. Sheesh!

It is interesting that people can easily see the damage we do on the small scale, but on the global scale then they suddenly become blind.

The reality is that all life alters both the atmosphere and the climate, the atmosphere originally contained practically no oxygen. Photolysis was the first mechanism to produce small amounts of oxygen, but it was not until photosynthesis appeared, that plants managed to dramatically alter oxygen concentrations by converting CO2 and releasing oxygen in the process. Initially the oxygen reacted with raw metals to form oxides for example iron ore. It was not until that process was complete, did the level of oxygen in the atmosphere really take off. The life form that achieved this feat was predominately various forms of algae.

By burning fossil fuels we are attempting to reverse the process. To understand the consequences it is only necessary to understand that the sun over a couple billions of years has been slowly increasing its output to the present such that it is some 25% greater than the time that life first appeared. Despite this global temperatures have remained in a fairly stable, which has allowed life to sustained. The only rational explanation is the reduction in the greenhouse effect caused by of the gradual decline of CO2.

The problem is that pumping large quantities of CO2 back into the atmosphere will reverse the gradual cooling effect which has compensated for the increased heat output of the sun, and just as it did in the distant pass reduce the rate of heat loss. The science tells us what happened in the past, and is by far the best guide to the future. It is abundantly clear altering the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will affect the climate. I find strange that people even ask do you believe in climate change, it is not a question of faith it is one of science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/Perry_Samson_lectures/evolution_atm/

Well Robert LePage, I do try to talk intelligently to people like you, so I guess I must be really stupid.

But to return the favor regarding income, you wouldn't be employed by an organisation benefiting from AGW research grants, or taxpayer subsidy of alternate generation by any chance would you?

One thing that is for sure, when governments try to suppress knowledge, you can bet they are up to no good. Could one of you warmists please explain why they would want to suppress the simple fact that the planet has stopped warming? Don't be frightened to use the word payola in your answer, in fact you probably can't answer the question without using it.

Hasbeen,

The 'planet' has not stopped warming as you seem to think. Most of the warming is being taken up by the oceans.

In another thread you imply you have a BSc Mech Eng - very unlikely given your (mis)understanding of the science.

You made the statement "One thing that is for sure, when governments try to suppress knowledge, you can bet they are up to no good."

So you think the current government is up to no good - I have to agree with you there.

“I guess I must be really stupid.”

I am glad that you agree with me that you are stupid.

”But to return the favour regarding income, you wouldn't be employed by an organization benefiting from AGW research grants, or taxpayer subsidy of alternate generation by any chance would you?”

I wish but the answer is no.

Of course the IPCC does not admit that there has been no warming, this is a ploy by the denialist industry to muddy the waters before the report comes out.

Dear Hasbeen,

Just a reminder that in Australia in 2006, leading
climatologists with the country's pre-eminent
public research organisation, CSIRO, were forbidden by
the organisation's management from publicly discussing
the implications of climate change. Management was acting
on behalf of the government. And Australia is one of the
standout countries in terms of human development status.
It is not corrupt. Its science is world class. None of this
mattered. In 2006, the Australian Government's position was
to cast doubt on global waming and refuse to enter UN
agreements such as the Kyoto protocol.

With the release of the Stern Report on climate change, the
Australian Government's position had weakened - yet the
then Prime Minister remained half-hearted about a
commitment to counter global warming.

It seemed that little had changed
from past history when Galileo was put under house arest by
the Vatican for saying that the earth moved around the sun.
In fact, in 1633 the church made him recant his theory of the
universe.

Then as now - new ideas, instead of being welcomed for the opportunities they open up for the improvement
of the human lot, are seen
as threats by those who have become comfortable in their
ideologies (religious or otherwise).

Look how long it's taken for smoking to be recognised as a
health hazard and for governments to try to actually do
something about it. A better world is possible. It will
take time. It will be difficult. But it will be worth it.

Well ozdoc, if you actually believe that, tell us how it got there.

Robert, they are about to. They have no choice, the evidence is irrefutable, even when you have billions of taxpayer dollars to try to concoct a story. Oh, & as an industry, the truth seekers on global warming must be the worst paid industry on earth, unlike academia, with their fraud.

Yes Foxy my sweet, we did show some sense before our Ruddy came along & tried to ride the global warming fraud to secretary general of the UN.

Fortunately the net has made it impossible to prevent the truth becoming public, hence Labors desire to control it in the last days of their collapse.

It is a pity you will only read the propaganda in your lefty spin publications, I'm sure you would understand, if you opened your mind & looked at all the facts. Recent peer reviewed research has left the warmists with nothing to stand on

<< I am a sckeptic, That means I am not convinced that AGW is real. It does not mean that I "Know" that it is false, it means that I suspect that it is false. >>

I am a sceptic too Bazz. But I strongly suspect that it is true.

<< This is the discussion that should replace AGW arguments. >>

Absolutely!

We should be looking at the future of fossil fuel energy production and consumption, not just in terms of the quantities needed, but also the ever-rising prices and all the economic factors related to that.

Basically it is the economics, not the actual ability to supply the resource, that is all-important.

If we seriously plan for the future on this basis, we will be implementing as many renewable energy sources as we possibly can.

And we would be addressing climate change, inadvertently, but much more effectively than if we concentrated on it as the highest priority.

As I keep saying to Hasbeen, whether you are an ardent denialist or a sceptic or a committed warmist, it shouldn’t matter, because we should be doing the same sort of thing anyway!

Let’s set AGW aside and concentrate on the implications of us continuing to exploit oil in all its forms, and the other fossil fuels, in terms of economics….. and sustainability!

While I've given up arguing with ignorant junk-science purveying deniers like Hasbeen, thought I'd drop in to say the Climate Commission is being resurrected as the Climate Council.

Privately funded.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/23/climate-commission-resurrected-as-private-body?CMP=soc_568

Yes Poirot, good to see………

Except it should now become the Sustainabiity Council!

Climate change is the WRONG thing to focus on!

I would have thought that Tim Flannery, author of The Future Eaters nearly 20 years ago, would realise this.

But alas, he hasn’t been real crash-hot on sustainability for quite some time now. I would like to think that now he is independent of government funding that he can see fit to do this, like he used to.

Well, Ludwig, the two are joined at the hip.

You don't often hear the words "climate change" without encountering it's antidote "sustainability" in the next line or so.

Semantics.

good to see the religion is now privately funded. Its about time.

"Basically it is the economics, not the actual ability to supply the resource that is all-important".

Unfortunately if this is true then we are stuffed, because the value of the know fossil fuels reserves is in the hundred of trillions of dollars. Thus if the imperative is purely economic then we are bound to exploit it all, regardless of the consequences to future generations.

We know increasing CO2 levels will cause global temperatures to rise the only question is by how much, we also know that if we were to burn all the fossil fuel which can be economically extracted the impact on climate would be severe. This unfortunately is beyond any reasonable doubt.

Renewables can easily replace fossil fuels, but the change over is expensive, so it is only when current infrastructure wears out that is likely to be replaced with cleaner forms of energy production, and even then it due to the longevity of fossil fuel generators, a more likely result is that renewables will simply add to the amount of power being generated rather than replacing fossil fuels as the primary source of production.

In my view it is only when you accept that burning fossil fuels will negatively affect the climate can you really hope to come to grips with the problem.

Cartoon link below:-
http://www.google.com.au/imgres?um=1&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=657&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbnid=AFcfY5uzMs-3SM:&imgrefurl=http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/global-warming/nsw-bucks-national-trend-for-gas-emissions/2009/01/11/1231608523379.html&docid=at_qp6FRI9oD8M&imgurl=http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2009/01/11/120109wilcox_narrowweb__300x304,2.jpg&w=300&h=304&ei=18FAUuyFH4rsiQKmroCADQ&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:92,s:0,i:363&iact=rc&page=6&tbnh=199&tbnw=196&start=84&ndsp=18&tx=93&ty=94

<< Well, Ludwig, the two are joined at the hip. >>

They certainly ought to be, Poirot. But they ain’t always in some peoples’ thinking. In fact there seem to be a lot of greeny warmists out there who aren’t sustainabilityists!

These people advocate renewable energy, and greater efficiency and frugality, which is all good, but they miss the other huge factor – rapid population growth.

So there is plenty of concern about climate change without it necessary being holistic and properly sustainability-oriented.

I hope that our Professor Tim can see this and not continue to be silent about the population factor, on the global level and particularly the national level.

Professor Tim is but another exposed fraud feasting on the public purse.

"Professor Tim is but another exposed fraud feasting on the public purse."

What would you know?...about as much as the no-science shonks in govt.

: )

(What's a "bum fight" anyway?)

One thing we all know, but some like to ignore Poirot, it that it was Tim's typically totally wrong predictions that cost Ozzies about 6 billion, yes billion wasted on those mothballed desalination plants. 3 of them mothballed without ever producing a single liter of water for public consumption.

Remember his prediction that drought was now permanent, & rain would never fill our dams again, or is that another of our warmist bull droppings forecasts you prefer to forget? Bet those flooded out because they did not build the planned levies won't forget his unhelpful big noting any time soon.

I really can't understand how the peanut has the hide to show his face in public after that lot. Have you noticed he is still shooting his fool mouth off, & that totally useless mob at the ABC are still hanging on his every word.

Warmair said;
we also know that if we were to burn all the fossil fuel which can be
economically extracted the impact on climate would be severe.

Well actually it is in doubt !
The Uppsala University's Global Energy Group has made a study of all
oil, gas and coal resources and found that the quantities available
are not sufficient to produce the amount of CO2 that the IPCC uses in
its models.

http://www.sei-international.org/video-archive/1821

A paper was published on this matter but the AGW proponents just
don't want to know. It is the old story GIGO !

"yes billion wasted on those mothballed desalination plants. 3 of them mothballed without ever producing a single liter of water for public consumption."

Tell that to the west Australians??

Oh sorry about that Robert LePage, I got it slightly wrong, it is 4 desal plants mothballed, & the little one in WA doing a little bit, & the waste is more like 8.5 billion. Some people don't know when to keep their fool mouths shut.

Isn't it funny how green twits can ignore the elephant in the room but see the mouse.

What do you reckon Robert, should we charge Tim for our wasted taxes, or KRudd & Julia? It is obvious all 3 were lying for political reasons.

The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 395 parts per million
It is calculated that should the level exceed 550 ppm then global temperatures will increase by 2 deg C which would cause dangerous climate change. The 550ppm level will be reached when we pump another 600 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

There are enough know fossil fuels available to produce 3000 billions tons of CO2

http://climatecommission.gov.au/report/the-critical-decade-2013/

Burning 1 ton of pure carbon produces 3.66 tons of CO2
Coal Total Proved Reserves, Million tonnes 860,938
Natural gas Proved reserves, Trillion cubic meters 187
Oil Proved reserves, Thousand million barrels 1,669

1 barrel of oil typically produces about 300 kg of co2
1000,000,000*1669*300/1000 or about 500 billion tons of CO2

The amount of carbon in coal varies quite a lot but assuming an average figure of 75% carbon
then the CO2 produced by a ton of coal = 3.66*907*0.75= about 2.5 tons of CO2
burning all the coal gives (860938*1000000*2.5)/1000000000= about 2150 billion tons of CO2

Gas is mainly methane
1 cubic meter of methane weighs in at about 0.72 kg at normal pressure but is only 75% carbon by weight
3.66*0.72*0.75*187*1000000000000=about 370 billion tons of CO2

Totals 500+2150+370=3020 billion tons of CO2

So Bazz I don't how SEI arrives at is result but it is clearly in error.
From the above it is clear that burning all the know fossil fuels would cause the CO2 level to exceed 1000 ppm and for average global temperatures to increase by over 4 deg C

Bazz
Pr Aleklett has not studied in depth the 'reserves' not yet discovered.

Perhaps you should wait till all technical reports of AR5 are released.

Well Warmair if that is the figure being used by IPCC then they may well have it wrong.

Ozdoc said;
Pr Aleklett has not studied in depth the 'reserves' not yet discovered.

Well maybe, but what is known that all new discoveries are usually
quite small as it is believed that all large deposits were long ago
discovered.
Have a look at the declining size of new discoveries.
No more Saudi Arabias are on the likely horizon.

Bazz referring back to my last post the big problem is coal, the known reserves are at least 860,938 Million tonnes, a ball park figure in this range is widely accepted but if you wish google it here:-

https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=cr#q=coal+reserves+worldwide

If we burn all the coal, we will produce over 2000 billion tonnes of CO2 but it will only take 600 billion tons of CO2 get us over 550 ppm in the atmosphere. At 550ppm it is estimated global temperatures would have increased by 2 deg C . Basically we could probably avoid the worst aspects of climate change, by not burning anymore coal, cutting back on oil, burning more gas instead, and adding reasonable amounts of renewables into the mix.

Bazz, what is known is that Aleklett concedes that his 3 yr old estimates are just that, "estimates".

"all new discoveries are usually quite small" - really, Bazz?

Are you suggesting 'methane clathrates' are quite small as a fuel resource, or the Arctic or South American oil fields, or the African coal, oil & gas 'discoveries', or the vast world-wide CSG reserves are quite small?

No Bazz, please wait for more informative analysis - much better than your second guessing on matters that you want to believe.

Warmair, I understand where you are coming from - but may I respectfully suggest you leave 'back-of-the-envelope-maths' out of it? Just wait till AR5 is fully released. Cheers.

ozdoc,

Good advice.

: )

¨but may I respectfully suggest you leave 'back-of-the-envelope-maths' out of it? Just wait till AR5 is fully released.¨

This is exactly the problem I have with Aleklett he is using a whole pack of envelopes. It has been accepted for at least a decade, that burning all the known reserves of fossil fuels will push CO2 levels well over anything that the scientists consider safe. This is a trivial problem to demonstrate. It has nothing to do with IPCC scenarios, which in reality deal with when we are likely to reach various milestones on the way to stuffing up the climate. The question is can we safely burn all the known reserves of fossil fuels the answer is clearly no. In my view science without numbers is basically just opinions.

http://www.monbiot.com/2009/05/06/how-much-should-we-leave-in-the-ground/

Just a comment on a couple of things.
First peak world coal is expected around 2025 to 2030.
The reason that it seems to differ so markedly to what you believe is
coal reserves is because it that it takes into account the cost of mining.
Australia is in the fortunate position of having plenty of cheaply
accessible coal.

Re oil, well the year in which the greatest amount of oil was discovered is 1963.
Ever since then each year the discoveries are smaller.
In 1983 the amount of oil consumed exceeded the amount discovered.
The graphs have drawn further and further apart since.

If you find it, just sit and contemplate it, the conclusion is clear.

ps Shale hardly touches the sides.

I would put the graph up here but pity that facility is not available.
Try Googling Colin Campbell I think it was part of an article he wrote.

Bazz the issue has nothing to do with peak anything, it is a very simple question if we burn all the known fossil fuel reserves what will be the result ?

The are called reserves because it has been shown that they can be economically retrieved. The best information available tells us that we have far more fossil fuel reserves available than we can safely burn.

You mission should choose to continue this discussion is to prove that either we won't burn all the reserves or that the estimates of the reserves are grossly in error.

"Bum fight"?

Hasbeen is right about one thing ... he supports a yesterday's man, sad.

And ozdoc, tomorrow's man is exactly who pray tell?

Dear Hasbeen,

Hopefully it will be someone who's got qualities
such as initiative, leadership, drive, negotiating
ability, willingness to take risks, and persuasiveness.
Someone who's genuinely concerned about the nation's good
and directing unprecedented energy and resources to the
real problems that face us, including health, education,
aged care, transport, and so on.
Who knows who that may be - but we can only hope that
it will be someone who'll be more concerned about this
country than their personal ambition or party loyalties.

So Haz, what do you say about today’s news:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/ipcc-report-scientists-are-95-certain-humans-causing-climate-change-8843573.html

http://theconversation.com/four-hiroshima-bombs-a-second-how-we-imagine-climate-change-16387

Luddy mate, you can't really be that dumb. It never occurred to me that you would read such CR4P as the Independent. It' s not your usual fare is it?

And what an article. I couldn't believe any publication could still be using those clichéd images. A calving glacier, & a popular one by all the tourist boats, a polar bear, one of the 500% increase numbers of them no doubt, & the steaming heat exchangers of a power house, for god sake. Mate you demean yourself referencing such garbage. At least the public broadcaster came up with the idea of Kakadu National Park becoming ocean. Equally fatuous, but at least a little more imaginative.

And then the Conversation. Do you really read this junk? True to form, they even had the same clichéd images, less the glacier, perhaps even they are embarrassed with that one.

I really do find it hard to believe you could reference such stuff on a public forum. God, think of your reputation. That garbage is now there under your name forever.

Obviously, as predicted, the "scientists" lost their backbone at the last minute, after the German heavies got to them, & threatened their budget. I wonder how many will resign after this kicking.

Haaaa hahaha Haz! ( :>)

Methinks it is time for you to concede that your abject denial of anthropogenic climate change was a baaaaad call!

Hasbeen thinks he's Alan Jones ..... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. That's the price of freedom of speech ....... ignorance.

Hasbeen, give it up, "God, think of your reputation.", and fall in behind the last IPCC report (AR5).

I posted this on the other current climate thread, Hasbeen, and you might wish to at least read my final paragraph.

In seeking info about global cooling events I came a across this series of links that were interesting because there is reference to parts of Australia.

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap15/lgm.html
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap15/natl_osc.html

I just want to bring back the point that in the ice ages global average temperature reached only 5 to 6 degrees below today's average, with massive glaciation over now civilized parts of the planet.

This puts a projected 3-4 degree rise in perspective. We (our descendants) won't simply cope with such a high global average temperature increase by turning up the air-con. It's much, much more serious than that.

Interestingly, for those interested in following the last link, there is the conclusion: "The moral is that global warming is unlikely to be uniform. Also, cooling in one area does not disprove global warming generally".

Anyway, I am now 95% confident that there is a big A in front of the GW. Whether or not there is a C before the A is up to us.

Hasbeen, I reached my limit on the other climate thread wasting good posts trying to reason with you or make you accountable for your assertions.

On ocean acidification you wrote: "Come off it Luci. The moment someone starts on this ocean acidification, we know they are a con man, or the dupe of a con man.

The ocean is so alkaline that we could not even bring it anywhere neutral with all the CO2 in the solar system.

You are just laying a huge trap for yourself with this bullsh1t. Even not very well educated people, who may be fooled by the greenhouse gas confidence trick, aren't going to fall for this one"

A term for ocean pH decreasing is "acidification". Nobody is claiming the ocean will become acidic (pH < 7). If I did I'd be laying a huge trap for myself and you could call me a confidence trickster.

Instead, let me not waste any more keystrokes as you are unreasonable and unaccountable. Just read about acidification and its effects at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Luciferase,

You might like this comprehensive article from The Seattle Times on ocean acidification.

http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/sep/11/pacific-ocean-perilous-turn-overview/