Educated Opinions on Climate change - a denouement or a hoax? Part 2.0 29

[jmw]

Now why is that unethical?
Why, for example and if we believed it, should we make the lives of countless millions of people a misery for the sake of a few thousand Islanders who thin k sea level is rising.
Warming and cooling, its the same argument.
Some people will be better off and some worse off.
A classic example expounded by warmers is that if temperature increases there will be a lot more heat deaths in the summer.
On the other hand, something not accounted for by the warmers, warmer winters would mean far fewer cold related deaths, especially amongst the old and some would argue that the increase in heat deaths would be far outweighed by the decrease in cold related deaths.
I would suggest that it might possibly unethical if warming was a unbiversally bad thing for someone to pursue their own comforts at the expense of 7 billion other people's, but that isn't the case, is it?
In fact, tha'ts one of the issues.
With 7 billion and rising, food production is important and warmer weather means bumper crops.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[TGS4]

moltenmetal - thank you for your reasonable post. We may disagree on many things in this particular topic, but I certainly appreciate your level-headedness in discussing and promoting your perspective.

As JMW writes, we still have to understand the harms that warming (or cooling, for that matter) cause. Actual, real, quantifiable harms.

As a side-note to this, from the recent Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) work, only about 66% of the stations, the total of which represent 39% of the earth's surface - not evenly distributed - recorded warming in the period 1950-2007. That means that a full one-third of stations recorded a cooling trend. So, while we have been discussing warming, actual data shows some stations (33% of stations, the total of which represent 39% of the earth's surface) have cooled in this period of global warming. Also I should note that BEST came with no attribution - which is really the crux of the issue here, isn't it?

 

[cranky108]

I just don't see that we should be forced to pay for something that can't be proven. And more so because the things that are proposed are some of the most expencive things.
If they had started with the less expencive things, I might have gone along to a point.

Going along with AGW theory, dosen't make me feel good, and actually is making my life style decline. So I basicaly have a negitive view.

 

[TGS4]

Did you just confuse my obvious mocking of the denier interpretation of climategate with an actual, serious personal attack? I guess I would expect nothing less from a paranoid conspiracy theorist. You guys always think that someone is out to "get" you.

Ad hominem attacks are the reserve of scoundrels and folks who have lost the debate. Without any [sarc][/sarc] quotes, I don't know your sarcasm/mocking from the rest of your drivel.

So let me get this straight - you think that it is OK that UEA (and, don't forget the current fight at UVa) unlawfully disregarded a lawful FIOA request because they didn't like the requester, and what they might do with it? Would you think the same if the one doing the disregarding was a government and the requester was a journalist?

Oh - and if you are going to make claims that UEA dissented from the FOIA request from an individual, etc - name names and provide citations. Without facts, all you have provided is innuendo.

 

[ronbert]

TGS4

The data BEST is using is very suspect. The BEST study uses data
from earth stations that produced flawed data.

see:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

I visited the two sites near me (<50 miles). Both sites were compromised. Each station was near an exhaust fan. The pictures were added to "surfacestations" and were shutdown in the late 90s by NOAA.
BUT the data remains in the NOAA database.I suspect there is more cooling occuring than BEST shows. The amateur stations (5) show cooling in the same area.

ron

 

[TGS4]

ronbert - I too have very little confidence in BEST, because of the siting issues that you mention. However, even with its warmist bent, it still showed that 1/3 of the stations showed cooling trends for the last 60 years. Kinda take the Global out of AGW, doesn't it?

 

[lacajun]

I went to St. Croix a couple of years ago. The sea level seemed to be in the same place it always has been. The locals weren't alarmed by the "rising" sea level. They didn't even mention it. Same thing in Genoa, Italy.

I spent the US Thanksgiving holiday in Carlsbad, California and didn't see any rising sea level. It seems to be where it's been for the last, oh, twenty years I've been going to Southern California. The coastline along the Gulf Coast doesn't seem to be rising either. It's been in the same place over my 52 years on earth. But, I am not taking measurements of anything just coarse observations of a lot of time spent on the beach.

It's OK to disagree. I've read some of the posts and reached the conclusion that some of you vehemently and disrespectfully dislike any dissenting view on the "scientific" conclusions of AGW. That disrespect has spilled over from the few participating in this thread to the "whole lot of you." That is unacceptable. David and TGS4 are intelligent and highly capable of reasoning as good as anyone on this forum and possibly better. Others are in their company.

Everyone has an agenda. People want all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons and they'll do anything to justify their positions. If you don't believe it, watch any political election. Consider the divorce rate in the USA. Everyone conspires for something. Apply those thoughts to the scientists, too. After I graduated with my BS, I read Science until too many retractions had been printed because the scientists biased their experiments to get the desired results. That caused me to view the whole thing as primarily a farce. I dropped my subscription and didn't read another issue that arrived.

To believe that all people possess no motives, good and bad, is a path for being taken advantage of and quite possibly in a bad way.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

 

[ornerynorsk]

Hmmmmmmmm . . . sea level rising. Continental uplift. Certainly there is some alarm that's to be raised with continental uplift?!?! I wish Chicken Little would just shut up and go home.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[cranky108]

Did anyone else see that someone had found a link between Earth Quakes ate tropical storms?

Was that also found in the climate models?

 

[ornerynorsk]

There has certainly been speculation and theorising about earthquakes relating to glacial melt. Millions of tons of water/ice being displaced or relocated is a plausible enough cause. In fact, weren't there some (genuinely) acadamic papers written with concerns over the 3 Gorges Dam? I would venture a guess that any kind of storm with massive water displacement and movement could have an effect.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[zdas04]

Some of the stuff I saw on the 3-Rivers Dam was an outstanding use of computer models to influence a tangible design. Computer models "indicated a range of possible outcomes", they didn't try to "prove" a position, and those articles I read made it look like the designers of that dam understood that amazingly well.

David

 

[jmw]

Uh oh, World Government is still on the cards according to Christopher Monkton ....
So how many bozos will sign us up to this?
Do the people on this planet get a say in anything any more or is it just a bunch of self appointed self important totalitarian idealists?

My first thoughts were that Christpher Monton had gone off his trolley and was spoofing the document.... till I downloaded it and read it.
He's serious and he's right.
This is a document written by some grade A loony tunes and we ignore what is happening at our peril.

40. [Ensuring that ecological functions of Mother Earth will not be commodified in order to guarantee the rights of nature;]

What is "comodified"?
The "rights" of nature?

And some PC speak:

alternative energy disadvantaged

And what the heck does this mean:

9. In the context of the ultimate objective of the Convention under its Article 2 and of the Bali Action Plan (decision 1/CP.13), Parties share the vision for the achievement of a global goal to reduce global anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases based on equity, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and historical
responsibility preceded by a paradigm on equitable access to sustainable development which will ensure adequate time for social and economic development for all developing countries.

Who wrote this garbage?
And in what language (I can only assume they wrote it in Hittite and used Babel fish to translate the lot in one go)?

Here is a nice proposition couched in choose this dire option or this even worse dire option but do not chose something sensible:

12. Parties [should collectively reduce][share the goal of achieving a reduction of] global greenhouse gas emissions by [at least ][50][85] per cent [from 1990 levels] by 2050 (to be updated based on the 2013–2015 review of the global goal);

Wow! 50% or 85% reduction in CO2! Should we start learning how to nap flints now? And will the mammoth return to be hunted? That's the sort of society they will leave us with after also banning armies.
Ban armies?
Go take a look.
Military activities are harmful to the environment and should be banned.

Technology:

.....the obligations of developed country Parties to provide financial resources, transfer technology and capacity building support to developing country Parties

And that means?
I think we can work it out.

And:

57. Decides that Parties should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international economic system that would lead to sustainable economic growth and development in all Parties, particularly developing country Parties, thus enabling them to better address the problems of climate change. Measures taken to combat climate change, including unilateral ones, should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade,

and an intellectual property grab:

66. Consistent with the principles of the Convention and to enable meaningful mitigation and adaptation actions in developing countries, the flexibilities of the international regime of intellectual property as articulated by the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights may be used to the fullest extent by developing country Parties to address adaptation or mitigation of climate change, in order
to enable them to create a sound and viable technological base; accordingly, consistent with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, each Party retains its right to grant compulsory licences and the freedom to determine the grounds upon which such licences are granted; specific and urgent measures shall be taken by developed country Parties to enhance the development and transfer of technologies at different stages of the technology cycle covered by intellectual property rights to developing country Parties.

67. The removal of all obstacles, including intellectual property rights and patents on climate-related technologies to ensure the transfer of technology to developing countries.

Heck, go download and read this document and see what sense you can make of it.





JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

Oops! nearly missed this one:

17. Reduce global greenhouse gas emissions more than 100 per cent by 2040 by Annex I Parties; sustained by short-term mitigation by Annex I Parties of more than 50 per cent by 2017; ensuring stabilization of the global temperature at a maximum of a 1 degree Celsius increase;

How do you reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 100%?
Is there a new math that no one told me about?

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[zdas04]

That statement 17 is no more stupid than the rest, it is just blatantly stupid and the rest is masked in complex phrases.

The "more than 100%" is not the worst thing in the paragraph. These idiots are planning to "ensuring stabilization of the global temperature at a maximum of a 1 degree Celsius increase". They never heard of sun spots? Orbital precession? As I keep saying, this is just a wealth transfer, not an effort to protect the globe.

David

 

[jmw]

Annex 1 parties are apparently the western economies by the way.
The whole thing is an attack on the west.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

Durban Deal
Well, whether AGW is real or not, he lunatics are firmly in control if this "historic agreement" is anything to go by.
The deal is going to do little for the climate since the Annex 1 parties have to do all the cutting while the rest receive money and technology and the freedom to do what they want.
China is well capable of undoing all that the west does.
It already is.
It would be nice if they made China and Annex 1 country with the "more than 100% reductions".
Of course, with any treaty one of the keys to "success" is implementation.
Chances are this may well be a nice piece of paper but as the realities sink in they may find getting the implementation is difficult.
The Greens have lost some of their power in the EU and the UK has already signalled it isn't going to go all out even on its already less than "more than 100%" CO2 reduction.
Implementation means the individual treaty states putting domestic legislation in place.
With luck, by the time the lunatics return home, they will be given their medication and shut away somewhere where they can do no damage.
But it requires a lot more noise from the electorates to make the politicians a lot more nervous than they have been for some time.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

Well, in the final agreement they talk about 2degC. A marginal improvement.
But they appear to have agreed it in any event.
I suggest meeting them all off their planes and upping their thorazine doses.
This care in the community thing has gone too far.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[owg]

I suppose more than 100% means stop all emissions plus build a plant to absorb a few ppm out of the atmosphere, quite a challenge whether in this century or the next.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[jmw]

No, I think that is all to do with the next greenie scam - population.
We could happily meet this target if we reduced our population by 90-95% which would make them very happy indeed.
Perhaps "happily" isn't the best word choice, but it will have to do.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[satchmo]

Even the hurricane experts are questioning the reliability of computer models.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/entert...it+they+predict+hurricanes/5847032/story.html

One quote:
"Our early December Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasts of the last 20 years have not shown real-time forecast skill even though the hindcast studies on which they were based had considerable skill.”

Does this mean that they couldn't tell where it was going with any certainty, but could tell with a great deal of accuracy where it had hit?