"UN scientists warn time running out to tackle global warming" Topic

Martin,

You should contact the UN. You do a much better job of selling the issue than do they.

JJ

but please before you say that again, actually read and try to understand the IPCC

You mean the folks who make the scientists modify their papers to fit the political view? The folks with the "our carbon footprint is accounted fo by the pre-existing trees", the "we need more clarity on our carbon footprint before we stop these (lavish travels and expanding footprint) meetings? The folks who just in that section use Dr. "Prepare for the ice age we need to coal dust the arctic" Hansen eleven times? Mr credibility himself?

Those guys?

Before we start dealing with the political question of what to do with reducing GHG emissions, we have to first agree that there is a problem.

No we don't. The alarmist side is predicting terrible things X, Y, and Z will occur unless we cut emissions, without replacement energy sources by B amount by year D.

THAT WILL NOT WORK – given the realities of the economic need for energy NOW and the need for growth, as in India who has said they will not cut.

So, what is your plan B? No one has to agree with your assessment for you to come up with a plan B, just like no one had to agree with you when you came up with the unaffordable, unpalatable, unaccepted by key players plan A.

My point is that if you have major players who absolutely will not do what you want, providing them another century of graphs, and links, and write-ups proving you are not just right but really, Really, REALLY right, if you don't have a solution that the key players will follow, then you have no solution.

Regardless whether I'm in the equation or not.

Which then raises the question that given you are convinced you are right, and that the needed solution is unattainable because of the position of key, needed players, is it better to spend more money on research that confirms what you assert is true but they don't care, or is it better spent on research for alternative energy sources, and steps that need to be taken to mitigate what you are convinced is going to happen?

Had we started mitigation then, the pace of change would have been slower, less drastic, require less fanciful technology and would have averted billions to trillions in mal-investment for infrastructure that is unsustainable. In many ways, it's similar to trying to save for retirement at 25 vs trying to save for retirement at 55.

Great analogy, but so what? We didn't. So what is the plan?

Didn't think so…

Read the IPCC? I have. If you follow other threads, you'd know that in part, I've quoted it to argue against the position of some of the extremist anti-capitalist warming alarmists (Thanks Tim, glad you taught me that "see into their minds and label them trick).

Except that it takes about 30 years for all of the short-term feedback of a molecule of CO2 to be reverberate around all of the layers of the climate system. This is called the Transient Climate Response.

Then why don't the speakers who make these stupid predictions know that? Are they ignorant and need to read the IPCC reports as well? Why hasn't there been ANY, let alone a loud authoritative dismissal of the nonsense from the "settled scientists" who I assume are aware that the predictions are total nonsense? Could it be that they (incorrectly) agree with them like Hansen? Or that they like the friction from the hype? Why aren't ANY of them responsible enough, ever (AFAIK) to come out and say, "I know Dr. Lumbago just made a prediction, and while that may be possible, it is really at or beyond the extremes of our studies and is extremely unlikely to happen, if at all."

You have any record of them doing so? Yet how many very loudly trumpeted announcements and pronouncements been made – the string of which I can provide – that haven't happened and in many cases haven't even come close?

Does that pass your epistemological filter?

No. They have to do a lot more for a lot longer.

Like 'em or not, agree or not there is still significant disagreement by the larger than 3%

link

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

PDF link

link

link

link

link

link

PDF link

No we don't. The alarmist side is predicting terrible things X, Y, and Z will occur unless we cut emissions, without replacement energy sources by B amount by year D.

Well, first off, if you don't accept that the problem (elevated CO2) exists, then there really is no point discussing solutions, now is there. As for the predictions, most are based on the current science and continue to be refined as additional data comes to hand. You see, JJ, science is funny that way; it constantly changes as new information is found. So, are you contesting the science behind the predictions? (Which, BTW, is out of the Denier playbook. Deny there is a problem because you don't accept the science). Or are you upset that they aren't carved in stone?

THAT WILL NOT WORK – given the realities of the economic need for energy NOW and the need for growth, as in India who has said they will not cut.

So, what is your plan B? No one has to agree with your assessment for you to come up with a plan B, just like no one had to agree with you when you came up with the unaffordable, unpalatable, unaccepted by key players plan A.

My point is that if you have major players who absolutely will not do what you want, providing them another century of graphs, and links, and write-ups proving you are not just right but really, Really, REALLY right, if you don't have a solution that the key players will follow, then you have no solution.

So…. You're saying the initiatives to curb CO2 build-up are unworkable. Well, here's the problem: That's not the province of the climate scientist, that's the province of the public policy community. The science will tell you there is a problem (CO2 accumulation) and a general solution (reduce CO2 emissions). HOW you get that done is up to the public policy gurus. And the methods available are wide and varied and subject to much debate, but the scientific community can only inform that debate. The actual policies have to be developed by the public policy community.

So, JJ, it's appears you should take your arguments to the politicians and not the scientists. They're the ones who are responsible for developing Plan A (or B, or C).

As for what happens if we do nothing? Well, CO2 will continue to rise and the inevitable impacts will be felt (physics will have its due). And future generations will damn us to eternity for not wising up when we had the evidence blatantly in front of us and the time to do something about it…

Well, first off, if you don't accept that the problem (elevated CO2) exists, then there really is no point discussing solutions, now is there

That depends. I've made the point that if the war mists do not have a solution that is achievable, affordable, and acceptable to all the needed principals in the solution, then it doesn't matter who is right. I don't have to agree with what you think is going to happen for you to tell me that because you are right, a plan that satisfies those constraints is X, Y, and Z.

As for my opinion on the science, I'm not claiming that man has no influence. I am agreeing with the scientists who believe the system of climate is more involved than the IPCC theory, the IPCC's solution is not necessarily correct in terms of what they assume away, do not include in their models, and in the weighting and sensitivities. Not my say so, other climate scientists.

If the IPCC is not responsible for the solution, then I accept it goes to the politicians who have decided to largely low it off.

Because the IPCC folks are convinced they are right and things are sufficiently proven – as Martin says, just working on 2nd and 3rd order piece parts, then given you amount of certainty, combined with the continued refusal of governments to do what you recommend, isn't it more prudent to spend that money on researching how to mitigate the effects of what will come, rather than continuing to try to prove what you say is settled, and holding conferences with ever expanding carbon footprints, and then either out of malice or stupidity claiming that the footprint is taken care of by pre-existing trees?

As for what will happen if we do nothing more than efforts like are taking place now and moving towards cleaner energy as the economies and science progress, your side has done a -poor job with their predictions to date.

If my scientists are right and yours are mistaken, future generations will damn you to eternity for needlessly cutting the throats of struggling economies and pushing the globe into an economic crisis from which it will not recover, all while the evidence was blatantly in front of us but ignored by scientists who for whatever reason are tied to an anti-capitalist agenda.

JJ

If my scientists are right and yours are mistaken, future generations will damn you to eternity for needlessly cutting the throats of struggling economies and pushing the globe into an economic crisis from which it will not recover, all while the evidence was blatantly in front of us but ignored by scientists who for whatever reason are tied to an anti-capitalist agenda.

So, you DO deny that anything should be done. And considering a good number of your scientists' findings have already been discredited by the majority of researchers in the field, I wouldn't put credence there. (And thank you for the Galileo Gambit. Right out of the Denier playbook…).

At this point, there really are no grounds for a discussion; some believe we should have taken action already while you see no need (and blame some evil, mythical, Anti-Capitalist conspiracy for any attempt to do so. ). It's pretty clear where you're coming from. If you want to talk about the politics of climate change, go to the Blue Fez (I'm sure you'll find much comfort there); it doesn't belong here….

"So, you DO deny that anything should be done. "

Where did I say that? I said you don't have a workable acceptable plan. Having a plan that will not be followed seems pretty close to not doing anything. I've repeatedly posted that we should be spending our money on R&D for alternative energy source development, such as biomass from the ocean as a clean fuel, expand the use of natural gas, build nuke plants, as well as continuing to do generalized improvement of the environment.

How exactly does that make me "denying that anything should be done?"

You say we should have already taken action. We haven't. You say it's up to the politicians to solve the method. They haven't and won't. I'm asking that given those hard facts, what SHOULD be getting researched, given that the respective governments will continue for the foreseeable future keep kicking the can down the road? What is the point in wasting money, time and effort researching what "is settled" as opposed to spending it more wisely on other related research and mitigation?

My tongue in cheek reference to the "radical anti-capitalist warming alarmists" is my firing back at Tim, who, despite what I've repeatedly posted, claims he KNOWS I'm denying climate change. So all I was doing was poking fun at his mystical ability to read my heart and mind through the web and label me. Nothing more. Sometimes sarcasm is missed by the tone deaf, or folks who didn't bother to read the references to what Tim does.

Politics of climate change doesn't belong here? Then don't be talking about the IPCC and their reports, or anything else from the UN. Do you believe there is no political component to the AGW side of things? Do you not believe that the failure of specific government projects and expenditures and policy statements coming that are based on the IPCC are not politics?

Rather naive…

The idea that there is nothing to discuss just because we disagree is .

What else should be done?

Where is the most promise for alternative energy?

Given the well documented anti-green and limited effectiveness of wind and solar, to what extent should they be relied upon?

Can they be made more ecologically friendly?

Dodo the scientists who are advocates of certain positions have any responsibility to rein in their fellow scientists and influential but non-scientists who talk nonsense? I mean, the whole reason for peer review is to ensure what is coming out is correct and supportable. So why the silence that comes with all of the chicken little, unbelievable predictions and pronoun cements?

Should the UN be involved in building nuke plants to supply the third world?

Should the UN be taking an active role (as they are) in changing the economic model of the world?

I could rattle off several more, but it seems those who differ with me would rather call names and claim there is nothing to discuss, or that there is no point ing having a discussion with me. OK, I get it. You folks don't like being challenged, don't like hard questions.

Fine with me.

We can just leave things with "if you don't have a plan (from politicians or anyone else) that will be effective, affordable and acceptable to all the needed participants, then it doesn't matter who is right."

JJ

Martin,

You should contact the UN. You do a much better job of selling the issue than do they.

JJ

Why, I'm essentially cribbing their notes as well as salting in some late breaking research. It's all there in the literature. However, when it's hard enough for people to accept the greenhouse effect in principle, how do you fit transient climate response and equilibrium climate sensitivity in a 5 minute "debate" against a professional actor/shill presenting talking points that are by design too nuanced to rebut within those 5 minutes?

The folks who just in that section use Dr. "Prepare for the ice age we need to coal dust the arctic" Hansen eleven times? Mr credibility himself?

Those guys?

As for the good Dr Hansen, do you have any proof he said that? I'm talking first hand evidence, not LOLWUWT material, since considering his later body of work on the subject, I have my doubts that this is quote-mined.

future generations will damn you to eternity

Well, bless your little heart.

Martin,

Paraphrased him. He certainly was one of the ice age proponents. He's also quoted, links previously supplied, about the flooding of Manhattan.

Why, I'm essentially cribbing their notes as well as salting in some late breaking research

That may be, but you actually try to explain things in a manner that is accessible and understandable to most people, while the IPCC report is over the head of the average person who is the one who must pressure the politicians if the politicians are going to do anything.

Well, bless your little heart.

Just borrowing the line from the person who said that about those who disagree with his position.

Paraphrased him. He certainly was one of the ice age proponents.

As I suspected, it's quote mined and here's his response from his Columbia University website from a few years ago:

PDF link

That may be, but you actually try to explain things in a manner that is accessible and understandable to most people, while the IPCC report is over the head of the average person who is the one who must pressure the politicians if the politicians are going to do anything.

Thanks for the complement, but I hasten to add that the full report isn't meant for politicians, but rather to act as a "best available summary/synthesis of what the majority of climate scientists and their national science organizations can agree on".

The IPCC then creates three technical reports (called working groups)

Wroking group one which is tasked at looking at the physical evidence and then making predictions/projections (And yes, there is a technical difference here, but I won't get into it) about the future with a wide range of plausible and less plausible assumptions about future actions

Working group 2 which takes the information from WG1 and then tries to estimate the future Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability needed/caused by climate change and

Working Group 3 which looks at what technology / policies need to be in place to minimize the cost of adaptation if/when we fail at prevention.

These are highly technical, but I can read and understand them (mostly), since I do have a few degrees in a related field (Geography) and I packed all of my mandatory physical geography courses in remote sensing and meteorology. Had I not had a fortuitous meeting/discussion with one of my professors in the map library during my senior year, I would probably had gone to grad school to study the retreat of the Laurentide ice sheet in the Northern Great Lakes region rather than my current area of study which is the spatial diffusion of financial systems. So when it's claimed that there are no climate researchers on this board, it's technically true, but I would consider myself the next closest thing.

So how are politicians and policy makers supposed know what's happening without requiring advanced degrees? That's where the summary for policy makers comes in. It can be found here: PDF link , it's only 32 pages and written at the level of sophistication/complexity seen in a high school level science class. That being said, it has extensiveness cross-referencing to the original report if you want/need additional clarification/context for as to how a certain decision was reached. These are very straightforward, I think that they should be more widely read.

it's only 32 pages and written at the level of sophistication/complexity seen in a high school level science class.

Well that apparently rules out most of the "well informed voting public" 8)

Just as a driver's licence doesn't really mean you are a capable , safe driver, a HS diploma these days really doesn't mean much.

Even if it did, even if that information is there, how many of those aforementioned voters, and for that matter, politicians actually read it?

Of those, how many would be willing to get voted out of office for something that might be needed but will cause great economic upheaval until there is a replacement available and affordable?

JJ

First, whatever Martin said is not Germaine.

Wasn't Germaine one of the Jackson brothers?

A man goes to collect his car from its regular service. The mechanic says to him "The horrible noise you've been hearing when driving is a problem with your brakes. It's serious and dangerous, and it's going to cost a lot of money to fix."

The man leaves the workshop and goes next door to the news agency. The man tells the news agent about the brakes, and the agent says "It sounds like he's trying to scare you! You don't want to be scared do you? Listen to me and I'll make it so you're not scared.

Firstly, he just wants your money! Examine his motives! Here, buy this newspaper – it contains the mayor's re-election speech which explains this scam mechanics have to fund their lifestyles.

Secondly, I'll bet he'll tell you he's studied for many years and has many more years experience, like that makes him better than us! But we've got common sense, and that's worth more than his fancy qualifications! Anyway, we've read the mayor's piece, so we're educated on the topic too! Also, this is a democracy, and there are two of us and only one of him!"

Thirdly, he's always telling people their cars need repairs to avoid crashes, but I've never seen any car crashes. My cousin's been letting this mechanic fix his car for years, and none of the crashes predicted from these supposed faults ever happened, so clearly they were never going to! And my cousin keeps paying for these fancy repairs!

Lastly, that noise you get when driving could be anything! I'll bet it's not even in your car. It could be… birds outside! Yeah, birds! That's 2 explanations, so clearly its 50/50. I bet I can come up with many other explanations, decreasing the chances that it's the brakes.

So, don't be scared! Keep your money! You tell that mechanic what a crook he is!"

The man goes back next door, berates the mechanic and his other customers, insists the repairs don't happen, and then drives off, ignoring the horrible sound.

Guess what happens next?

His brakes fail and his car plunges off a pier into the ocean. The *rising* ocean, because of anthropogenic climate change.

If only it were as simple as looking at worn brakes. Nobody KNOWS what global warming (climate change) is going to do in the future. Only lots of hypothesis tossing going on, all very scientific, of course, but also very contradictory. Almost all of it very doomful, because nobody pays any attention to boring fortune tellers.

Life is not going to stop, it will change, as it always has. There is nothing sacred or special about our coral reefs or present array of animal life. 99% plus of all life on this planet from the beginning is extinct already. Nobody was around back then to "save the fishes for Jesus" and they died off.

Or we can try and "save the fishes for Jesus" and dump half of our available fresh water into the ocean for that purpose, causing a water shortage during a sustained drought. Oh, wait.

Let's try and predict how many crop growing areas will go unproductive, and how many other areas will become productive, and how long that will take, and how many people will starve to death during the change, etc. and etc. and etc.

Or, let's not.

Instead, let's talk about clean, renewable energy and look for yet unknown energy sources. Meanwhile, maintaining the lifestyle which supports the growing billions the planet already holds.

Or, we can say that affluent White People are evil and do our best to get rid of them through breeding them out and redistributing all of their wealth and resources amongst the indigent of the world. (sparing the billionaires, naturally)

And let's by all means remove all guns and cars, because the unwashed populations of Earth cannot shoot or drive them safely….

Sure glad I missed this most recent display of civil discourse.

On the other hand, Great War Ace wrote:

Let's try and predict how many crop growing areas will go unproductive, and how many other areas will become productive, and how long that will take, and how many people will starve to death during the change, etc. and etc. and etc.

That is exactly what climate scientists, as well as agricultural scientists, economists, and the CIA are talking about. End of the world scenarios are the stuff of science fiction, nuts, and straw-man arguments by deniers.

Or, we can say that affluent White People are evil and do our best to get rid of them through breeding them out and redistributing all of their wealth and resources amongst the indigent of the world. (sparing the billionaires, naturally)

And let's by all means remove all guns and cars, because the unwashed populations of Earth cannot shoot or drive them safely….

Wow. This is the first time I've seen someone play the race card in a climate change discussion, not to mention the 2nd Amendment, eugenics, and the great driver's license debate, which I didn't even know there was one. It appears to me your opinions on science are closely tied to your political ideology.

Just to set the record straight from my side of our discussion,
-I believe climate science is the best indicator of what is actually happening;
-I do not believe all "affluent White people" are evil,
-I believe the practice of eugenics is an atrocity;
-I believe that some slowing, or reversing the current trend in the redistribution of wealth is needed for our economy to be sustainable;
-I believe that gun sales need a bit more regulation;
-and I believe one should pass a test in order to get a driver's license.

Oh, and BTW lest you get the wrong idea on the gun sale thing, I own five handguns and a rifle.

My point is Great War, the stereotypes you described in your post, don't really apply. In fact, they are more like caricatures. Let's try to avoid that, okay?

Back to the climate debate. There are often allegations here that factors other than human generated greenhouse gases are what is driving the current warming of the earth's surface, such as fluctuations in solar activity, the earth's orbit, and volcanic activity to name a few. It is also argued that hatt these factors are rarely, or not at all considered in the climate prediction models.

Since none of us are experts at any of these sciences, let alone climate change, it is difficult for us to understand how all these stimuli interact with the earth's climate. Anyway, I found this interactive graphic that looks at all of these factors, and more, and shows what impact, if any, they might have had on global warming.

link

Let's try and predict how many crop growing areas will go unproductive, and how many other areas will become productive, and how long that will take, and how many people will starve to death during the change, etc. and etc. and etc.

That is exactly what climate scientists, as well as agricultural scientists, economists, and the CIA are talking about.

In fact, Great War Ace, several of us posted about exactly that in the "Years of Living Dangerously" topic here on TMP back in April of last year: TMP link

You even posted in that topic, Ace, so I assume that you read it.

In that topic, we posted about crop responses to climate change, changes in plant hardiness zones, melting permafrost in the sub-arctic tundra and why it isn't suitable for growing crops, the migration of invasive species, and so on.

Who said that "we" are going to move our wheat fields into the arctic?

A subtle shift will move crop growing regions subtly. I haven't seen anything claiming that fate, outside of the fear-mongering, virtually scifi, assertions. ("Interstellar" had the whole Earth going dead within a generation or two, all from climate change, all caused by evil homo sapiens. And why was that movie portrayed as having been based on sound, scientific theories? Ah, it couldn't have been co-opted by the AGW advocacy to send yet another message about AGW, could it.)

Anything happening that takes a century or longer to adjust to will be adjusted to. If the earth's population takes a hit because of famine, that will be collateral damage from our unsustainable lifestyle. The surviving, smaller population will continue to enjoy their lifestyle at an increasing level of technology.

We as a species didn't get this far only to die off because we don't know enough to move our croplands….

We need to do our part, by ceasing all carbon (really carbon dioxide) emissions, immediately. No vehicles, heat, air conditioning, power, etc. Go 100%, cold turkey, at least here in the USA, since China, India, and other major polluters won't.

Sure, we'll take a major hit (deaths), and it'll reduce the temps a century from now by only a few tenths of a degree, but we need to do it for the planet.

Surely, if those in other far off lands can live like they did in the stone age, we can too, right?

Granted, a large portion of those that don't commit immediate seppuku to really show us the way, and do their part for the environment, will expire in short order anyway, but that will get us back into balance, eventually, as the human population drastically shrinks.

I imagine the cockroaches will be very appreciative of our efforts, and the few survivors in the USA will need to learn to speak Mandarin, or Cantonese.

I cheerfully await news of the "die-hard" promoters setting an example, first.

I want red wine from Yorkshire, like in olden times; so bring it on…

In 2006 my boys and I went on a quest to visit the last tree. To paraphrase an element of a Stephen R. Donaldson novel, we called it "The Quest For The One Tree." In our case "the one tree" was a scraggly pine tree alongside the Dalton Highway (Also called "The Haul Road" and featured prominently in the cable TV program "Ice Road Truckers.")

The "Last Tree" is theoretically the last tree one will find when heading north across the Alaska tundra toward Prudhoe Bay on the banks of the Arctic Ocean. As one travels north, a host of factors will cause the forests to thin out and disappear entirely until there are no more trees to be seen.

We flew into Fairbanks along with a planeload of volunteer firefighters from Labrador who were on their way to assist the Alaskans in fighting two million acres of wildfires, then rented a small SUV and headed up the Dalton Highway. The first hundred miles or so were paved, then the remaining 400 miles were dirt or gravel.

We found "the last tree," and it even had a little plaque describing it as such, but it turned out that it wasn't the last tree any more. We drove north up the highway past one tree after another until twenty or thirty miles had passed and indeed there weren't any trees any more. Gates of the Arctic park rangers told us that every year the trees were growing farther and farther north up the road.

If you still don't believe in global warming, watch a copy of the film "Goldfinger" and study the scenes that take place in the Alps. During Bond's alpine drive you can see glaciers in the background in certain scenes, but if you can find current footage of the same scenes you will find that those glaciers are all gone.

I remember back in the 1950's people would drive their cars far out onto Lake Michigan to go ice fishing. You can't do that any more.

Admittedly my "evidence" is only anecdotal, but I personally believe that global warming is real.

And the solid empirical evidence backs up your anecdotal evidence, Tumbleweed.

We need to do our part, by ceasing all carbon (really carbon dioxide) emissions, immediately. No vehicles, heat, air conditioning, power, etc. Go 100%, cold turkey, at least here in the USA, since China, India, and other major polluters won't. …

Who says we should do that? No one. FYI, China is imposing more radical controls than we are, but then their problem is more immediate and severe. So, what you are saying re China and India is analogous to something like being on a bus that is about to go over a cliff, and just because other people on the bus are refusing to do anything about it, you will too?

I cheerfully await news of the "die-hard" promoters setting an example, first.

So that's it. You don't like the people who are warning us about climate change, so therefore you deny it?

A subtle shift will move crop growing regions subtly. I haven't seen anything claiming that fate, outside of the fear-mongering, virtually scifi, assertions.

The CIA released a report covering just that back around 2005. The report warned that the migration of crop growing regions was already causing geopolitical problems worldwide, and having an impact on the stability of poorer nations thereby posing a threat to our national security.

The "fi" in Scifi is for "fiction," makey-believe, fantasy. Okay, the producers of Interstellar may have hinted at a moral message (though I thought the problem was "blight"), but it's Scifi. If you conflate fiction with non-fiction, it makes it too easy to question reality.

Besides, even if the "blight" was caused by climate change, it was just a plot device. That is not what Interstellar was all about.

I know that. But the chance to "send a message" about how evil our lifestyle is and how it "killed the planet" was too good to pass up? Don't know. But I felt like that "plot device" was blatant propaganda mongering.

So if AGW is considered responsible for a "threat to our national security", that leaves the Gov't free to enact any number of draconian measures to contain said-security threat, including the curtailing of production and resources, etc. "In the national self interest", of course.

I do believe that this very real threat is what many of us "deniers" are upset about….

this very real threat

"The business of America is business." Until that changes:

Once again, Ace, you're bouncing all over the place. If you'd stick to one subject per topic, they'd be easier to address.

Didn't this very subject fill the kennel last month?

No, some of the *responses* to this subject did. As long as no insults are posted, or politics invoked, or news sources slagged, the DH can be avoided.

Let's see if I can avoid.

It is a very real threat when the Gov't invokes "national defense" and institutes draconian measures. All talk thus far of "necessary changes" moves in that direction, giving gov'ts everywhere control over the regulation of private enterprise resources. When the Gov't assumes total control over what resources get used, how much and by whom, that is called something DHable. But you said:

"The business of America is [Govt] business."

There, I fixed it for you. Under that system (which shall not be named) the Gov't is business, because it owns everything.

We've been moving in that direction for many years. AGW just plays into the hands of those who want it to happen. Take a scientific consensus and take control.

Worse coincidences of timing have happened before, but never on a global scale before….

Wow. Just wow.

Mini Ice Age to the rescue:

link

This is going to shoot those climate change/global warming models all to hell.

;-)

Sorry, Mako, your little balloon has been thoroughly popped….

TMP link

No "Little Ice Age" for you….

I think it's pretty funny that the reaction to solar science news has all sorts of qualifiers attached -- oh, the Sun-Earth relationship is so complex, there are other dynamic feedback cycles and factors we're not certain about, it could be this influence plus that influence, etc.,, etc. But when it's AGW -- no hesitation, crystal clear that is and can only be CO2! Stop discussing it further, it's SETTLED! There's no complexity that's not understood, no doubt, no qualifiers!

Ok, SB. so where's your hardcore, peer reviewed research that says CO2 is NOT a significant GHG?

And sorry, the empirical evidence shows GHGs have a far more significant impact on climate warming than fluctuations in solar activity.

Coming from the UN

The best thing we can do

link

*Whistle!* This IS a dangerous place.

At least JJ is getting out in one day. That was some kind of record stint in the pokey.

I don't even know what a "cargo cultist" is….

Cargo Cultists…

Really??? You can't refute the science, so you resort to attacking the messengers. That's the usual course of these things, it seems.

I think we can say that this subject has definitively run its course. No one is going to change their positions, everyone is going to get their panties in a bunch and more than a few are going to get DH'd.

Which is why the OFM was right; this subject should be BANNED…

Hey, I've got a novel idea! Why don't we paint some of that lead mountain that we all have? And drop trying to debate Climate Change….

Wow, I've been missing out – phew! ;-D

*Whistle!* This IS a dangerous place.

Yes it is but I dugged a tunnel.

Hey, I've got a novel idea! Why don't we paint some of that lead mountain that we all have? And drop trying to debate Climate Change….

Yet you keep posting…

Any response on why the IPCC folks shouldn't be considered hypocrites or liars for their South American Excuses?

Didn't think so.

I've been hesitant to approach this directly since it has more to do with politics than the actual science, but I have to ask a clarifying question JJ, are you implying that countries outside of English North America and Europe should be allowed to host a scientific conference on a pressing question or are you questioning their competence on the subject matter and/or ability to host one?

I am raising the issue that was raised back in 2008 by a member of the IPCC as to whether given the contribution to the problem from travel and the meetings whether or not they should be doing them by videoconferencing instead, as he in fact was doing. Even he pointed out the hypocrisy of "rules for you and me but not them."

I'm questioning the logic and honesty of folks who claim that global warming is so serious that drastic steps must be taken while at the same time they seem to have no problem with ever increasing carbon footprints from their meetings.

I'm questioning whether these same folks who justified their South American excess with the pathetic claim that their carbon was accounted for by trees already there, as if they were not already actively functioning as carbon filters. If the actually believe their nonsense, they are morons and if they don't, they are liars and hypocrites.

I'm questioning the effectiveness of the messengers who are supposed to be convincing the world in general and politicians in specific about anything when their repeated actions and their own words indicate clearly that they don't take the problem or their pronoun cements seriously at all.

That is what I am questioning. The science may be rock solid, but when the messengers act and speak like they have, I contend it is akin to a drunk lecturing other on the need for temperance, while chugging down a fifth of liquor themselves.

Hardly an effective or believable messenger in either case.

Coastal2 keeps trying to duck the issue and attack me over my motivation while ignoring the issue, actual quotes and documented behavior of IPCC members that demonstrate this is a "rules for thee but not for me" issue, as well as dismissing out of hand the quoted UN official who claimed the climate activism was not about saving the world but transforming the economic model of the world. "Dark conspiracy" he calls it and mockingly dismisses it yet offers nothing but proof by blatant assertion that the UN person quoted was somehow not telling the truth.

JJ

Seems I was banned for typing the phrase "Cargo Cultists" and posting an important editorial from Richard Feynman. It is relevant here because he warned against science that maintained the *form* but not the *substance* of science. He states that essential to science is a form of utter honesty and integrity such that you go where the data takes you and you make clear how your science may be incorrect or incomplete. And this becomes critical when your data, your science may be used by politicians to determine or justify policies.

link

"…For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of his work were. "Well," I said, "there aren't any." He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind." I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing-- and if they don't support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision.

One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish BOTH kinds of results.

I say that's also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don't publish such a result, it seems to me you're not giving scientific advice. You're being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don't publish at all. That's not giving scientific advice."

So now ban away, I suppose I should have been more clear when I posted what I did.

Gotta get that tax revenue stream rolling……

It's already kicked off in California, and a number of companies have fled the state due to the high costs and regulations here.

I suspect many more will do so shortly.