Global Warming

[skippy]

I'm not expecting much more I guess. He is still having an issue getting his poll data up from a few days ago

Kunts like you deserve your kids to die because of climate change reasons first before the smart people who try and do something about it , unfortunately that probably won't happen.

[skippy]

If you weren't Impotent and did have kids they would die of a shame having you as a parent.

[Super Nova]

Now some of the blunders of the past are corrected, it is time to move on with the science and take the most appropriate action.

For balance, I present this article.

IPCC Finally Acknowledges Its “Himalayan Blunder”

By Pallava Bagla | April 4, 2014 |

BANGALORE, India—Amidst the doomsday scenario presented by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) there is one silver lining, at least the glaciers in the Himalayas are not disappearing for at least a couple of centuries. The billion plus people who inhabit the fertile flood plains of the Ganga, Indus and Brahmaputra can breathe easy that the rivers which nurture them are not drying up anytime soon.

....

The 2007 Himalayan glacier error had badly tarnished the reputation of the Nobel Peace Prize winning IPCC. Now Chris Field, one of the lead authors of the latest report, tells the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) that the Himalayan glacier error was “really serious.” According to the French news agency AFP, in the massive Fifth Assessment Report on climate impacts the IPCC said Himalayan glaciers would shrink by 45 percent by 2100, if Earth’s average surface temperature rose by 1.8 degrees Celsius. Under a far warmer scenario of 3.7 C, the reduction would be 68 percent. Field told the ABC, “we’ve tried to double check and triple check and quadruple check everything in this report.”

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gue ... n-blunder/

[IQS.RLOW]

They were wrong then, they are wrong now, they will be wrong again.

The carbon tax will be repealed and all will be right with the world.

[DaS Energy]

They were wrong then, they are wrong now, they will be wrong again.

The carbon tax will be repealed and all will be right with the world.

Labours Carbon Tax will die out. Then be taken over by Labours Carbon Trading till the liberals can get its own Carbon Trading up and running as per the three "we agree" put by Greg Hunt to select audience of the Carbon Market!

[Super Nova]

article by non-scientists back by an historian with IQs views.

The game is up for climate change believers

Charles Moore reviews The Age of Global Warming by Rupert Darwall (Quartet)

Most of us pay some attention to the weather forecast. If it says it will rain in your area tomorrow, it probably will. But if it says the same for a month, let alone a year, later, it is much less likely to be right. There are too many imponderables.

So what. That's not what they do. They are continually improving models and they allow us to take precautions... mitigate risks.

The theory of global warming is a gigantic weather forecast for a century or more. However interesting the scientific inquiries involved, therefore, it can have almost no value as a prediction. Yet it is as a prediction that global warming (or, as we are now ordered to call it in the face of a stubbornly parky 21st century, “global weirding”) has captured the political and bureaucratic elites. All the action plans, taxes, green levies, protocols and carbon-emitting flights to massive summit meetings, after all, are not because of what its supporters call “The Science”. Proper science studies what is – which is, in principle, knowable – and is consequently very cautious about the future – which isn’t. No, they are the result of a belief that something big and bad is going to hit us one of these days.

Arrr the belief syndrome.... it has a source.

Some of the utterances of the warmists are preposterously specific. In March 2009, the Prince of Wales declared that the world had “only 100 months to avert irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse”. How could he possibly calculate such a thing? Similarly, in his 2006 report on the economic consequences of climate change, Sir Nicholas Stern wrote that, “If we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least five per cent of global GDP each year, now and forever.” To the extent that this sentence means anything, it is clearly wrong (how are we losing five per cent GDP “now”, before most of the bad things have happened? How can he put a percentage on “forever”?). It is charlatanry.

Naming a couple of Muppets like Prince Charles means jack.

Like most of those on both sides of the debate, Rupert Darwall is not a scientist. He is a wonderfully lucid historian of intellectual and political movements, which is just the job to explain what has been inflicted on us over the past 30 years or so in the name of saving the planet.

He is wonderful for the deniers because they are looking for someone to agree with them. Not a scientist... so why is his view so important.

The origins of warmism lie in a cocktail of ideas which includes anti-industrial nature worship, post-colonial guilt, a post-Enlightenment belief in scientists as a new priesthood of the truth, a hatred of population growth, a revulsion against the widespread increase in wealth and a belief in world government. It involves a fondness for predicting that energy supplies won’t last much longer (as early as 1909, the US National Conservation Commission reported to Congress that America’s natural gas would be gone in 25 years and its oil by the middle of the century), protest movements which involve dressing up and disappearing into woods (the Kindred of the Kibbo Kift, the Mosleyite Blackshirts who believed in reafforestation) and a dislike of the human race (The Club of Rome’s work Mankind at the Turning-Point said: “The world has cancer and the cancer is man.”).

The science isn't Green. We are effecting the planet... everyone agrees on that.

These beliefs began to take organised, international, political form in the 1970s. One of the greatest problems, however, was that the ecologists’ attacks on economic growth were unwelcome to the nations they most idolised – the poor ones. The eternal Green paradox is that the concept of the simple, natural life appeals only to countries with tons of money. By a brilliant stroke, the founding fathers developed the concept of “sustainable development”. This meant that poor countries would not have to restrain their own growth, but could force restraint upon the rich ones. This formula was propagated at the first global environmental conference in Stockholm in 1972.

So what.

The G7 Summit in Toronto in 1988 endorsed the theory of global warming. In the same year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up. The capture of the world’s elites was under way. Its high point was the Kyoto Summit in 1998, which enabled the entire world to yell at the United States for not signing up, while also exempting developing nations, such as China and India, from its rigours.

Piss poor performance by the major nations... so what.

The final push, brilliantly described here by Darwall, was the Copenhagen Summit of 2009. Before it, a desperate Gordon Brown warned of “50 days to avoid catastrophe”, but the “catastrophe” came all the same. The warmists’ idea was that the global fight against carbon emissions would work only if the whole world signed up to it. Despite being ordered to by President Obama, who had just collected his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, the developing countries refused. The Left-wing dream that what used to be called the Third World would finally be emancipated from Western power had come true. The developing countries were perfectly happy for the West to have “the green crap”, but not to have it themselves. The Western goody-goodies were hoist by their own petard.

True. We are hampering the west from progress allowing the rest to do SFA to help. Current politicies are crap.

Since then, the international war against carbon totters on, because Western governments see their green policies, like zombie banks, as too big to fail. The EU, including Britain, continues to inflict expensive pain upon itself. Last week, the latest IPCC report made the usual warnings about climate change, but behind its rhetoric was a huge concession. The answer to the problems of climate change lay in adaptation, not in mitigation, it admitted. So the game is up.

"he answer to the problems of climate change lay in adaptation, not in mitigation, it admitted" no it didn't. I recommended some adaptions that were necessary.

They said

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia

Scientists, Rupert Darwall complains, have been too ready to embrace the “subjectivity” of the future, and too often have a “cultural aversion to learning from the past”. If they read this tremendous book they will see those lessons set out with painful clarity.

What bullshit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/book ... evers.html

[IQS.RLOW]

What a childish refutation you offer, SN. Obviously your faith is beginning to show some cracks.

[Super Nova]

What a childish refutation you offer, SN. Obviously your faith is beginning to show some cracks.

I will proceed with further information to refute this non science when I have a moment.

However I did want to provide you a source that supports your views.... just for balance.

[IQS.RLOW]

You should be more concerned with your own sources. You do quite well ignoring the ones that we have put up previously so going off and picking your own to rebut like a 13 year old school girl eg. "So what?", I'm surprised you didn't add a "whatevs" or "whatevaaaahh" in there.

[IQS.RLOW]

The fifth iPCC alarmist spin report and latest smear campaign by the left on a scientist that doesn't tow the alarmist line.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ssier.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The professor who refused to sign last week’s high-profile UN climate report because it was too ‘alarmist’, has told The Mail on Sunday he has become the victim of a smear campaign.
Richard Tol claims he is fighting a sustained attack on his reputation by a key figure from a leading institution that researches the impact of global warming.
Prof Tol said: ‘This has all the characteristics of a smear campaign. It’s all about taking away my credibility as an expert.’
Prof Tol, from Sussex University, is a highly respected climate economist and one of two ‘co-ordinating lead authors’ of an important chapter in the 2,600-page report published last week by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
He has been widely criticised by green campaigners after he claimed that the much shorter ‘summary for policymakers’ – hammered out in all-night sessions between scientists and government officials over a week-long meeting in Yokohama, Japan – was overly ‘alarmist’.
In his view, the summary focused on ‘scare stories’ and suggestions the world faced ‘the four horsemen of the apocalypse’.
He said he did not want his name associated with it because he felt ‘uncomfortable’ with the way the summary exaggerated the economic impact of global warming.
The source of the alleged smear campaign is Bob Ward, director of policy at the London School of Economics’s Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change.
Mr Ward – neither an economist nor a climate expert – claimed on the institute’s website that he was waging ‘an ongoing struggle’ to force Prof Tol to correct ‘errors’ in his work.

image.jpg