Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[sptrawler]

Its really funny with discussions like this, they polaris people, neither side can prove the other side wrong.
The only winners are the ones that capitalise on the emotions, in doing so they have 50% of the people onside. Therefore they can bring about change before the theory is proven wrong or right. If it is proven right oh well thats good, if its proven wrong oh well suck it up.

 

[sails]

Looks like Canada is pulling out of Kyoto... Canada to pull out of Kyoto Protocol next month

and yet Gillard is throwing our tax payers funds around seemingly like confetti:

Australia’s fast-start package comprises:

$248 million to the 'International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative' to support adaptation efforts;
$146 million to the 'International Forest Carbon Initiative' to assist developing countries reduce emissions from reducing deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, known at REDD+;
$131 million to multilateral agencies to assist developing countries mitigation and adaptation efforts;
$38 million delivered through the climate change component of Australia’s contribution to the fifth replenishment of the Global Environment Facility; and
$36 million to other climate change activities in developing countries, including $15 million to 'Climate Change Partnerships for Development'.

Read more about our international handouts in which the Aussie voters have had no say by way of referendum or election:
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/international/finance.aspx

 

[So_Cynical]

Looks like Canada is pulling out of Kyoto... Canada to pull out of Kyoto Protocol next month

Did you actually read the story or was the headline enough for ya?

Kent is the (Conservative Govt) Canadian Environment Minister

Kent told CP in an interview ahead of the Durban conference that Canada will play hardball with developing countries to get an agreement during the climate talks.

Kent said developing countries should not be allowed to use the emissions records of wealthy nations as an excuse not to agree to lofty emissions-reduction targets.

He also said that all nations must be prepared to demonstrate their progress on whatever emissions targets are contained in any new deal.

So he's pulling of of a now pretty much defunct treaty (because the targets are unachievable) and negotiation a new deal..playing hard ball lol.

-------

Delegates from 190 countries meeting in SA...no deniers, just pollies playing hard ball.

 

[wayneL]

Did you actually read the story or was the headline enough for ya?

Kent is the (Conservative Govt) Canadian Environment Minister



So he's pulling of of a now pretty much defunct treaty (because the targets are unachievable) and negotiation a new deal..playing hard ball lol.

-------

Delegates from 190 countries meeting in SA...no deniers, just pollies playing hard ball.

That's so they aren't dis-invited from the junket.

 

[Smurf1976]

So he's pulling of of a now pretty much defunct treaty (because the targets are unachievable) and negotiation a new deal..playing hard ball lol.

Precisely the point that many have been making. The targets will not be met and there is no point pretending otherwise.

The next round of targets won't be met either unless by accident.

 

[sptrawler]

It is just a joke, other than for so cynical and Knobby, who want to believe us losing jobs, industries and sending electricity prices through the roof. Is some sort of cleansing process we have to go through.

http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...s-another-nail-into-kyoto-20111128-1o36o.html

The best part is.

The US, which never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, says it won't agree to a binding accord unless all emitters are included. China and India, which had no commitments under Kyoto, have become two of the world's three top polluters since the pact was approved in 1997

What is going on there! Obama said, Julia is very Bold introducing the carbon tax. Probably sounds better than saying she is an absolute D!!ck H##d.LOL
It will just be another stuff up in 12 months.
Also quite funny we won't burn coal, but we will sell it to anybody that does want to burn it. What The.
Doesn't sound like we really want to save the planet, no sounds more like we want to tax someone. LOL

 

[Julia]

Did you actually read the story or was the headline enough for ya?

Kent is the (Conservative Govt) Canadian Environment Minister



So he's pulling of of a now pretty much defunct treaty (because the targets are unachievable) and negotiation a new deal..playing hard ball lol.

There was a follow up to this on ABC Radio News and PM this evening.
Mr Kent said participating in Kyoto was one of Canada's major blunders.
He went on to say there was no way they would be engaging in anything remotely similar unless it was part of a completely global strategy, especially involving the US, China and India.

Better now, So cynical?

 

[wayneL]

More and more the msm is reporting the truth

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/29/a-climate-of-fraud/

EDITORIAL: A climate of fraud
New emails shed light on the global warming racket

The latest release of 5,000 emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) reconfirms what the 2009’s “Climategate” files established: Global warming is more fiction than science.

The basic problem with climate research is that it is at best soft science, and this leaked correspondence demonstrate just how unsettled it is. “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others,” one scientist wrote. “This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest.” Nonsense, another concluded: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.” But what if the whole warming phenomenon is “mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation?” one scientists muses. “They’ll kill us probably.”

Garbage in, warming out

LOL

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Perhaps some of the alarmist in this forum can provide some honest comments on this latest release of climategate emails?

There have been dozens if not hundreds of postings in this forum by alarmists that have directly referenced some of the climategate authors and their work - which shows corruption, falsifying data, using misleading data and deleting data to avoid foi requests, to name a few...

Is this disturbing to you? Or do you agree it's ok for the "cause"?

Read for yourself

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/#more-51549
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/breaking-more-emails-released-climategate-ii/
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...doesnt_warm_warmists_secretly_work_on_plan_b/

I'm assuming the lack of posts so far by Alarmists indicate it's not disturbing to them. If you are disturbed by this corruption - what is your position on the AGW scare?

 

[Knobby22]

I'm assuming the lack of posts so far by Alarmists indicate it's not disturbing to them. If you are disturbed by this corruption - what is your position on the AGW scare?

The lack of posts is due to the pointless situation of attempting to change your mind. There is a great article on it in New Scientist recently about how people form fixed view points and are unable to see the total picture. Your view is that all scientists are corrupt and the money pushing the opposite is all sweet smelling. There is no point trying to change your views.

 

[basilio]

The lack of posts is due to the pointless situation of attempting to change your mind. There is a great article on it in New Scientist recently about how people form fixed view points and are unable to see the total picture. Your view is that all scientists are corrupt and the money pushing the opposite is all sweet smelling. There is no point trying to change your views.

Amen. Or even attempting the discuss the issue intelligently.

 

[DB008]

How about this?

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.
The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

Link here....

 

[Calliope]

Perhaps some of the alarmist in this forum can provide some honest comments on this latest release of climategate emails?

...I'm assuming the lack of posts so far by Alarmists indicate it's not disturbing to them. If you are disturbed by this corruption - what is your position on the AGW scare?

Unlike the alarmist spokesmen on this thread, Tim Flannery now claims he is not an alarmist. His religious zeal is missing.

ABC News 24 Breakfast yesterday:

PRESENTER Michael Rowland: Fears about climate change, young people hearing interviews like this, are eventually leading people to freak out ... We're creating a self-perpetuating cycle here, aren't we?

Tim Flannery: Well, I think some aspects of the media, clearly some of the right-wing lunacy that goes on around screaming about the ...

Rowland: But there are also young people listening to people like you, Tim Flannery, as well.

Flannery: I don't think they should be scared by what I have to say. These are projections that we need to be concerned about and we need to be prepared for. It's not as if the end of the world is coming or anything else, but these are serious issues.

Rowland: But as we well know, projections can turn out to be horribly off the mark. You've made projections in the past that, thankfully, given the dire state of them, haven't been borne out.

Flannery: Um, well, give me an example.

Rowland: In March 2008, you were predicting that Adelaide - and I'm quoting you directly - may run out of water by early 2009. I looked shortly before coming on air and the reservoir level in Adelaide is at 77 per cent.

Flannery: Hmmm. Look, what I was saying back then was we've got serious water security problems around our cities

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ofessor-flannery/story-fn72xczz-1226210597814

 

[basilio]

How about this?

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism



Link here....

Sorry Dannyboy but that is just another lying piece of dribble created by Mr Taylor on behalf of GW deniers Inc.

The true story about the Spencer and Boswell peer reviewed paper ? It was a badly researched paper with some tentative conclusions that were then exploded into a grotesque unreality courtesy of the usual suspects.

The paper was so bad the Editor of the Journal resigned over the failure of the peer review process.

But of course you won't hear anything of this from Pielke, Spencer and co. And naturally the other umpteen thousand scientific papers that recognise the effects of extra greenhouse gases and the increased temperatures they are causing are just flamed off the table. We saw another typical example with the article Wayne quoted again from the lying Mr Taylor.

As Knobby points out discussion on this topic in ASF forums is pointless given the determination of many members to ignore the vast majority of the scientific communities work on this topic and then accept quite specious stories that confirm their desire to think it will all be alright.

The whole Real Climate post and comments are worth reading for anyone interested in the truth of the matter.

Resignations, retractions and the process of science
Filed under:

Climate Science
Reporting on climate

— gavin @ 6 September 2011

Much is being written about the very public resignation of Wolfgang Wagner from the editorship of Remote Sensing over the publication of Spencer and Braswell (2011) – and rightly so. It is a very rare situation that an editor resigns over the failure of peer review, and to my knowledge it has only happened once before in anything related to climate science – the mass resignation of 6 editors at Climate Research in 2003 in the wake of the Soon and Baliunas debacle. Some of the commentary this weekend has been reasonable, but many people are obviously puzzled by this turn of events and unsupported rumours are flying around.

The primary question of course is why an editor would resign over a published paper. Wagner (who I have never met or communicated with) explains it well in his letter:

After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.
…
With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements. [UAH press release. Forbes article etc.] (The Forbes article is one Danny Boy quoted)

He clearly feels as though he, and his fledgling journal, were played in order to get a politicised message to the media. A more seasoned editor might well have acted differently at the various stages and so he resigned to take responsibility for the consequences of not doing a better job, and, presumably, to try and staunch the impression that Remote Sensing is a journal where you can get anything published.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...tions-retractions-and-the-process-of-science/

 

[OzWaveGuy]

The responses from Basilio and Knobby imply that they're ok with the corruption from a key select group of so called scientist, and assert the real issue all along is about changing people's minds on AGW, which incidentally isn't an issue after-all and needs support from corrupt activities and methods to have the gullible alarmists believe it actually is a major issue.

Basilio, Knobby, do you think your deliberate failure to recognize such fundamental problems in the "science" and how the funding has influenced this "climate religion" is causing others here to question your motives, assertions, content and credibility? Hence it becomes obvious why nobody wants anyone pushing AGW in charge of anything.

If you both honestly think this is a game about changing people's minds, then perhaps take a lesson from MacCracken and think of a backup plan. Your approaches with Plan A are sunk.

MacCracken suggests that Phil Jones start working on a “backup” in case Jones’ prediction of warming is wrong

 

[wayneL]

The lack of posts is due to the pointless situation of attempting to change your mind. There is a great article on it in New Scientist recently about how people form fixed view points and are unable to see the total picture. Your view is that all scientists are corrupt and the money pushing the opposite is all sweet smelling. There is no point trying to change your views.

Ohhhh... the irony!

 

[Knobby22]

Ohhhh... the irony!

Yea, yea, my eyes have been blinded. All the scientists are in on it in a giant conspiracy and I have lost touch with reality (yawn).

 

[MACCA350]

Yea, yea, my eyes have been blinded. All the scientists are in on it in a giant conspiracy and I have lost touch with reality (yawn).

Not all, just those left after those that do not conform to "the cause" are ostracized.

Cheers

 

[Knobby22]

Not all, just those left after those that do not conform to "the cause" are ostracized.

Cheers

Point to an instance, then I will give you a Republican senator who was ostracised for having the "wrong" view.

 

[wayneL]

Yea, yea, my eyes have been blinded. All the scientists are in on it in a giant conspiracy and I have lost touch with reality (yawn).

See climategate MK2.