Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[Knobby22]

Bob Carter kept it quiet till now.
I'd like someone to ask him who else is giving him money?

We know for instance he wrotes a column for News Limited.
What does News get out of it?

News doesn't give any of the climate change scientists, the vast majority of scientists, a column.

 

[wayneL]

Bob Carter kept it quiet till now.
I'd like someone to ask him who else is giving him money?

We know for instance he wrotes a column for News Limited.
What does News get out of it?

News doesn't give any of the climate change scientists, the vast majority of scientists, a column.

Knobby

You believe it is ok for "scientists" with a pro-AGW hypothesis to get funding, but not those with a sceptical hypothesis?

 

[wayneL]

By the way, the leaked documents seem to have been faked.

 

[Knobby22]

By the way, the leaked documents seem to have been faked.

Yea, that's why he didn't deny it but instead attacked the reporter for asking and said it was funds for work.

 

[Knobby22]

Knobby

You believe it is ok for "scientists" with a pro-AGW hypothesis to get funding, but not those with a sceptical hypothesis?

Scientists should get funded for doing science, not spouting propaganda.
If a newspaper wants someone spouting propaganda, then they have a duty of care to be fair about it and give an alternate view.

 

[ghotib]

By the way, the leaked documents seem to have been faked.

Still got those uncontrollable eyes Wayne? Even Heartland only claims that one of the documents is a fake; they just say the others may have been altered. http://heartland.org/press-releases...-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents

I think their paragraph about the allegedly fake document is interesting:

One document, titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.

So, whoever wrote the document, if it accurately describes the Heartland Institute's actual goals, plans or tactics, I guess they've just disowned themselves. Enough to make anyone's eyes roll.

BTW, does anyone know who funds JoNova?

Ghoti

 

[wayneL]

Scientists should get funded for doing science, not spouting propaganda.

Well that counts out about 90% of pro warmist funding then doesn't it.

Look, AGW is a reasonable hypothesis, it should be studied. But funding should be geared towards arriving at a reasonable position. We know that government funding is only available for pro-warmist hypotheses.

That is not science. Sans funding for reasonable counterpoint or proper scientific process, it is propaganda masquerading as science.

Libertarians recognize the imbalance their and have devised alternative means of funding balancing study and in addition to scientific exploration of data are forced into a position of counter-propaganda.

If a newspaper wants someone spouting propaganda, then they have a duty of care to be fair about it and give an alternate view.

Indeed and hoist by your own petard.

 

[wayneL]

Still got those uncontrollable eyes Wayne? Even Heartland only claims that one of the documents is a fake; they just say the others may have been altered. http://heartland.org/press-releases...-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents

I think their paragraph about the allegedly fake document is interesting:


So, whoever wrote the document, if it accurately describes the Heartland Institute's actual goals, plans or tactics, I guess they've just disowned themselves. Enough to make anyone's eyes roll.

BTW, does anyone know who funds JoNova?

Ghoti

As I pointed out before, only your cabal of alarmists can help me with my eye control.

Ms Fish, who funds who is a question that could go on ad infinitum on both sides of the divide. But it is a red herring, a distraction from the true debate... unless of course you feel you are losing the intellectual battle and must resort to smear, innuendo and mock to take the debate off on an entirely different tack.

Increasingly, this seems to be the default tactic of the the warmist cabal... eg rolly eye quips.

I will await to see what comes out of the wash re fake/altered docs.

 

[Smurf1976]

Look, AGW is a reasonable hypothesis, it should be studied. But funding should be geared towards arriving at a reasonable position. We know that government funding is only available for pro-warmist hypotheses.

That is not science. Sans funding for reasonable counterpoint or proper scientific process, it is propaganda masquerading as science.

Libertarians recognize the imbalance their and have devised alternative means of funding balancing study and in addition to scientific exploration of data are forced into a position of counter-propaganda.

You've hit the nail on the head there.

Personally, I suspect there probably is some truth in the argument that CO2 would alter the climate if we emit enough of it. But we need to do proper unbiased research into the subject in order to arrive at meaningful conclusions as a basis for action (or otherwise if no problem is found to exist).

 

[Knobby22]

Libertarians recognize the imbalance their and have devised alternative means of funding balancing study and in addition to scientific exploration of data are forced into a position of counter-propaganda.

Didn't realise Exxon and the other big businesses were libertarians acting for the good of us all

 

[wayneL]

Didn't realise Exxon and the other big businesses were libertarians acting for the good of us all

Libertarians are individualists not collectivists. Libertarians seeks to create an environment where the individual is free to create their own niche in the world and be self responsible, rather than forcing some "for the good of all" totalitarian ideal on every person.

If climate realists are accepting money from Exxon et al, is it any worse than alarmists accepting money from purportedly "green" energy companies and government agencies? Funding has to come from somewhere.

Knobby you are trying to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds in a monumental hypocrisy. By attempting to smear realists with the funding nonsense, you in fact condemn yourselves 100 fold, such is the disproportion of funding.

I wonder why Ms Fish only attacks my use of rolleye emoticons and not your's or basilio's. I guess when you get used to selective use of data it pervades everything.

 

[Logique]

Age horrified! Sceptic paid 10 per cent of Flannery’s salary
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/..._sceptic_paid_10_per_cent_of_flannerys_salary
ENVIRONMENTAL activist Tim Flannery has pledged to take the climate change message to the regions after being appointed to head Julia Gillard’s Climate Commission in a three-day-a-week role that will pay $180,000 a year.

Care factor at the warmist Age? Zero.

Warmist Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg asked by Greenpeace to research:
Greenpeace commissioned one of the world’s leading reef biologists to find out what caused the dramatic coral decay. The report ...predicts many of the world’s reefs won’t survive the next century if current trends in global warming continue.

Care factor at the warmist Age? Zero.

Warmist Professor James Hansen compensated handsomely:
NASA records released to resolve litigation filed by the American Tradition Institute reveal that Dr. James E. Hansen, an astronomer, received approximately $1.6 million in outside, direct cash income in the past five years for work related to ”” and, according to his benefactors, often expressly for ”” his public service as a global warming activist within NASA. This does not include six-figure income over that period in travel expenses to fly around the world to receive money from outside interests.

Care factor at the warmist Age? Zero.

Sceptic Professor Bob Carter paid peanuts. Care factor at the warmist Age? Extreme:

A PROMINENT Australian scientist has rejected as offensive any suggestion he is doing the bidding of a US climate sceptic think tank that is paying him a monthly fee.
Confidential documents leaked from inside The Heartland Institute, a wealthy think tank based in Chicago and Washington, detail strategy and funding for an array of activities designed to spread doubt about climate change science… Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University, ... receives a ‘’monthly payment’’ of $US1667 ($A1550), as part of a program to pay ‘’high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist message’’.

 

[basilio]

Interesting to see the latest research on the effects of permafrost meltdown in the Arctic regions.

The video attached to the story is compelling as is the remainder of the article

Where even the earth is melting

EXCLUSIVE

THE world is on the cusp of a "tipping point" into dangerous climate change, according to new data gathered by scientists measuring methane leaking from the Arctic permafrost and a report presented to the United Nations on Tuesday.


Human-induced emissions now appear to have warmed the Arctic enough to unlock this vast carbon bank, with stark implications for international efforts to hold global warming to a safe level. Ancient forests locked under ice tens of thousands of years ago are beginning to melt and rot, releasing vast amounts of greenhouse gases into the air.

The report estimates the greenhouse gases leaking from the thawing Arctic will eventually add more to emissions than last year's combined carbon output of the US and Europe – a statistic which means present global plans to hold climate change to an average 2degree temperature rise this century are now likely to be much more difficult.

Until very recently permafrost was thought to have been melting too slowly to make a meaningful difference to temperatures this century, so it was left out of the Kyoto Protocol, and ignored by many climate change models.

"Permafrost emissions could ultimately account for up to 39 per cent of total emissions," said the report's lead author, Kevin Schaefer, of the University of Colorado, who presented it at climate negotiations in Doha, Qatar. "This must be factored in to treaty negotiations expected to replace the Kyoto Protocol."

What isn't known is the precise rate and scale of the melt, and that is being tackled in a remarkable NASA experiment that hardly anyone has heard of, but which could prove to be one of the most crucial pieces of scientific field work undertaken this century.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...-is-melting-20121127-2a5tp.html#ixzz2DUis0vQG

 

[white_goodman]

Interesting to see the latest research on the effects of permafrost meltdown in the Arctic regions.

The video attached to the story is compelling as is the remainder of the article




Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...-is-melting-20121127-2a5tp.html#ixzz2DUis0vQG

tipping point, crucial decade etc etc

 

[basilio]

What the New Scientist is reporting on the latest resaerch on Perma frost meltadon.

[QUOTE]We may be closer to a major climate tipping point than we knew. Earth's permafrost – frozen soil that covers nearly a quarter of the northern hemisphere and traps vast amounts of carbon – may be melting faster than thought and releasing more potent greenhouse gasses.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) released a report yesterday reviewing the most up-to-date research on Arctic permafrost. It claims temperature projections due in 2014 from the International Panel on Climate Change are "likely to be biased on the low side" because the IPCC does not take into account the positive feedback cycle of permafrost melting and releasing greenhouse gases.

"Overall, these observations indicate that large-scale thawing of the permafrost may already have started", the UNEP report warns. It calls on governments to monitor permafrost in greater detail and urges communities in permafrost areas to develop plans for managing any damage to infrastructure caused by the frozen soil melting.

But even these calls might be downplaying both the extent of the melting and the severity of the warming it could cause, according to NASA researchers doing groundbreaking research. Using a plane flying just 150 metres above the ground, the team has been measuring levels of both carbon dioxide and methane above the Arctic.
Elevated values

The NASA team has not yet finished analysing the data, some of which will be presented at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco next week. But preliminary results are already suggesting that levels of greenhouse gases in some Arctic areas are much higher than climate models have predicted, says Charles Miller of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, the principal investigator on the Carbon in Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment (CARVE).

[/QUOTE]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22549-arctic-permafrost-is-melting-faster-than-predicted.html

 

[Knobby22]

It will be interesting to see what the data contains next week.

 

[noco]

Ban-Ki-Moon is a rusted on GREENIE and he will only take notice of rusted on ALARMIST[/COLOR]


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...omments/panicky_ban_ki_gets_climate_spanking/

 

[Knobby22]

"Emissions are growing in line with the most extreme scenario".

"We cannot be that stupid as a species"

Some of the memorable quotes for the UN climate negotiations in Doha yesterday when "Nature" the foremost scientific journal published the Global Carbon project report which found that emmissions had increased 54 per cent since 1990.

 

[MrBurns]

"Emissions are growing in line with the most extreme scenario".

"We cannot be that stupid as a species"

Some of the memorable quotes for the UN climate negotiations in Doha yesterday when "Nature" the foremost scientific journal published the Global Carbon project report which found that emmissions had increased 54 per cent since 1990.

Even if humans are to blame, and I doubt it, it's too late now what will be will be.
There is too much evidence on both sides for and against humans being responsible. lots of vested interest "experts" out there.
Thats why we cant really say we know the truth about it all.

 

[noco]

"Emissions are growing in line with the most extreme scenario".

"We cannot be that stupid as a species"

Some of the memorable quotes for the UN climate negotiations in Doha yesterday when "Nature" the foremost scientific journal published the Global Carbon project report which found that emmissions had increased 54 per cent since 1990.

But according 125 scientists, emmissions have only increased by 9% over 16 years and represents only 0.039% of the atmosphere.

It is a matter of who is right, who is wrong and which one do you want to beleive.

The UN is full of GREEN LIES and what their agenda is I am not sure. One thing I am sure of is they leading the world in the wrong direction with their unfounded propaganda.