Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[wayneL]

LOL same as Copenhagen its an agreement to negotiate a LEGALLY BINDING agreement...its the deniers worst nightmare come true.

I don't know how some of you guys can make money in the market...with such stead fast denial of not just inevitability, but probability....amazing.

So it's effectively an agreement to cede sovereignty to the UN.

Mate, we all knew that was coming in some form. Gradualism at work comrade.

 

[Aussiejeff]

The agreement just signed is not legally binding, so there is no legal obligation or penalties that can be applied if they do not come up with a legally binding agreement.

And if they do come up with a legally binding agreement, then it will only be an agreement if all parties agree to the Ts & Cs. This will only be achieved if they agree to the lowest common denominator in regards to action.

And how would they possible monitor any agreement when China, the biggest polluter, will not allow any independent monitoring.

Indeed. A non-legally binding agreement to agree to "something" REALLY doesn't amount to much. Especially since in the intervening nine years there is the very distinct possibility of lets say,

(a) significant global unrest & wars
(b) economically crippling financial crises
(c) burgeoning natural disasters
(d) oil/diesel shortages & consequences

.... all throwing a mighty big spanner in the "agreement" to "agree" works!

If you think one day is a long time in politics, nine lo-o-o-o-ng years will seem like an eternity....

BTW, there will be an additional 530,000,000 or so mouths on the planet to feed by 2020.

Good luck with the "agreement" then... I wonder how long before the Green Euphoria dies?

 

[Calliope]

Its a deal to do a legally binding deal...The USA, China, Brazil, Britain, Europe Aust and India....a deal for the fist time ever....the world just got a lot dimmer for the deniers.

Durban...fail, fail, fail. A positive win for the deniers. The alarmists like you are grasping at straws, with this Clayton's agreement.

 

[Julia]

Not quite.

 

[ghotib]

Is that supposed to mean something?

 

[So_Cynical]

And how would they possible monitor any agreement when China, the biggest polluter, will not allow any independent monitoring.

I'm guessing you don't count the UN or its agency's as "independent"

http://www.nti.org/db/china/iaeaorg.htm

The IAEA has been working with China for decades, monitoring and mentoring the Chinese nuclear industry...how bizarre that you could possibly think the Chinese Govt wouldn't allow monitoring or international auditing of GHG's.

GHG isn't exactly a state secret.

 

[Smurf1976]

(d) oil/diesel shortages & consequences

aka the real elephant banging on the door right now whilst we argue about things which may happen in 50 years time.

 

[sptrawler]

aka the real elephant banging on the door right now whilst we argue about things which may happen in 50 years time.

Yes don't know how we are going to cope with rising oil fuel costs being driven by offshore pressures. While we are also having to cope with self inflicted coal fuel cost increases.
Hope it all works out well for us, apparently everybody else is going to watch us whip ourselves to death.
After the outcomes of the Durban change the world meeting, lets leave it till 2020. Looking forward to So Cynicals take on it.
Also when all the overseas companies have bought our coal mines(because we don't want them) and the gas is running out. What is plan B if technology hasn't come up with an alternative.
Guess it just boils back to minority government, representing the minority, with marginal ideoligy that the majority has to subsidise.

 

[Calliope]

This is what So_Cynical got so fired up about. He is too gullible to claim to be cynical.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

This is what So_Cynical got so fired up about. He is too gullible to claim to be cynical.

That's always been the case with the alarmists here, they will always argue and create spin rather than participate in a balanced discussion with facts and maybe, just maybe concede that the "scientific", political and NGO alarmists haven't been playing a straight game.

Oops, I think i've stepped over the mark, I shouldn't have used a harsh term like "concede" - Let me hand over to Basilio, Knobby et al to set everyone "straight" with the honest AGW facts....(and while you're doing that, place some "facts" in the hysterical thread, I believe there's still a list of basic questions on corruption and the science that need answering)

 

[Knobby22]

Empty vessals make the most sound.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Empty vessals make the most sound.

So it seems....although I think the momentum is waning

Any other impressive facts you can share Knobby? Or is the AGW bowl of spin empty?

 

[basilio]

There is is really no point in referring to actual science research on this forum is there ? Those you can read and understand what is happening just get more depressed while the remainder won't/cant read a scientific analysis of what is happening to save their life.

And of course it would just be too depressing wouldn't it ? Best to stay cheerfully ignorant I reckon.

For the former Skeptical science has a neat little analysis of the connection between rising CO2 levels and the rise and fall of previous ice ages. Given the current extraordinary and increasing levels of CO2 the outlook is very warm.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ppm451.html

You know I would love to include at least some of the story but somehow I just can't seem to upload it. I wonder why ?

 

[basilio]

And just to add a little more to my previous post there is another paper which quantifies the dominant role human greenhouse gas emissions have played in global warming .

Huber and Knutti Quantify Man-Made Global Warming
Posted on 10 December 2011 by dana1981

Huber and Knutti (2011) have published a paper in Nature Geoscience, Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance. They take an approach in this study which utilizes the principle of conservation of energy for the global energy budget to determine and quantify the various contributions to the observed global warming since 1850 and 1950. Over both timeframes, the authors find that human greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant cause of global warming

.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/huber-and-knutti-quantify-man-made-global-warming.html

 

[wayneL]

There is is really no point in referring to actual science research on this forum is there ? Those you can read and understand what is happening just get more depressed while the remainder won't/cant read a scientific analysis of what is happening to save their life.

And of course it would just be too depressing wouldn't it ? Best to stay cheerfully ignorant I reckon.

For the former Skeptical science has a neat little analysis of the connection between rising CO2 levels and the rise and fall of previous ice ages. Given the current extraordinary and increasing levels of CO2 the outlook is very warm.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ppm451.html

You know I would love to include at least some of the story but somehow I just can't seem to upload it. I wonder why ?

I lost count of the logical fallacies in your post basilio.

It is also evident that your goal is to irritate folks, because your style will certainly ensure polarization of the debate. You're not the only one doing this, but it is you who is demanding action (even though you admitted not taking any action yourself).

Your puppet masters will not be pleased.

 

[basilio]

I lost count of the logical fallacies in your post basilio.

It is also evident that your goal is to irritate folks, because your style will certainly ensure polarization of the debate. You're not the only one doing this, but it is you who is demanding action (even though you admitted not taking any action yourself).

Your puppet masters will not be pleased.

It's because you just can't count Wayne and also because you havn't the faintest clue about logical fallacies, honest science and respectful on forum behaviour. They are just big words you use to sound as if you actually know something.

As far as irritating people ? Well what could be more irritating than those who relentlessly ask the same questions and when given clear answers refuse to accept them because they don't like them and keep repeating the same inane line?

And you can take your repeated personal jibes and stick them up your xxxx. No imagination required.

Back to the point. Would anyway actually like to comment on the 2 papers I referred to ?

 

[wayneL]

LOL

Anger is always laughable from a position of gross hypocrisy basilio.

As far as "irritating", Have I not already pointed out it is multilateral? However, the other folk are not demanding any action from anyone, just evidence.

As you know, (but aren't willing to acknowledge) I sit somewhere in the middle on this issue.

But thanks to your ceaseless, unbalanced, one eyed proselytizing on an issue you apparently do not have the courage of your own convictions over, I might just become an outright "denier"... just for the sport. :

 

[Calliope]

Back to the point. Would anyway actually like to comment on the 2 papers I referred to ?

I don't think sceptics read your stuff anymore. It's a matter of credibility. Your "science" is deeply flawed.

In this scientific debate, one side is gagged while the other side has a government-funded media campaign.
$30 Billion makes for Monopolistic Science
A trial without a defense is a sham
Business without competition is a monopoly
Science without debate is propaganda
The scientific process has become distorted. One side of a theory receives billions, but the
other side is so poorly funded that auditing of that research is left as a community service
project for people with expert skills, a thick skin and a passionate interest. A kind of “Adopt
an Error” approach.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

 

[ghotib]

I don't think sceptics read your stuff anymore. It's a matter of credibility. Your "science" is deeply flawed.

Skeptics read stuff and check it before they form a judgement.

For instance, from the document you cited:

The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests.

That assumes that someone or ones went in search of such a connection. The whole document, and IMO most of the self-described skeptic argument, rests on that assumption. From the conclusion:

If George Bush was uncomfortable signing the United States of America up to global plans to reduce carbon emissions, possibly his greatest mistake was in not funding an Institute of Natural Climate Change with the responsibility of assessing the evidence for natural influences on the climate...

But that's exactly what the tree ring studies, along with the ice core studies and now many more, were about. They looked into the past to learn how the climate has changed before in historical and pre-historical times and why. That human caused carbon emissions are the primary cause of current global warming is one RESULT of studying natural climate processes.

How do I know this? Because Wayne started me investigating the so called climate debate when he posted a link to the movie "The Great Global Warming Swindle". I had seen An Inconvenient Truth and found it unsettling. I watched the Great Global Warming Swindle and hoped it was right. But I starting checking the references and soon discovered that it was riddled with errors.

That movie was the first example I found of a pattern that became clear in sources that are routinely cited on ASF, such as JoNova, Bishop Hill, Anthony Watts, Andrew Bolt, the Science and Public Policy Institute, the Heartland Institute, etc. They misrepresent the scientific material they cite, and they repeat their false statements even after the scientists who wrote the papers have told them that the work does not mean what they say it does.

It didn't take a scientific background to discover this. It took an open mind and a lot of time. In another context you could call it due diligence.

Ghoti

 

[OzWaveGuy]

How do I know this? Because Wayne started me investigating the so called climate debate when he posted a link to the movie "The Great Global Warming Swindle". I had seen An Inconvenient Truth and found it unsettling. I watched the Great Global Warming Swindle and hoped it was right. But I starting checking the references and soon discovered that it was riddled with errors.

Oh damn, you found all those errors by yourself from reliable sources huh? And did you at the same time look for errors in AL Gore's hollywood movie like a UK court had done and found over 9 errors and assertions that were wrong or simply not true.

Hypocrisy at it's best.