Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
mybrainhurts said:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/7/23/g...
Nutters....
Worse than previously thought.
It must be time to put HRH out to grass.
I'm easily confused but - from the article quoted in the BH post above ...Nutters....
Worse than previously thought.
It must be time to put HRH out to grass.
"Now is the time to recognise the linkages between poverty, injustice and usurped property rights with current modes of governance. The Earth System Governance Project addresses this mission by promoting innovative and interdisciplinary research on access and allocation of both material resources and non-material values."
Usurped Property rights from whom?
Apart from which I always understood that the socialist view was that "all property is theft", or words to that effect.
Maybe I am not the only person easily confused. Where do I collect my PhD?
LongQ said:
I'm easily confused but - from the article quoted in the BH post above ...
"Now is the time to recognise the linkages between poverty, injustice and usurped property rights with current modes of governance. The Earth System Governance Project addresses this mission by promoting innovative and interdisciplinary research on access and allocation of both material resources and non-material values."
Usurped Property rights from whom?
Apart from which I always understood that the socialist view was that "all property is theft", or words to that effect.
Maybe I am not the only person easily confused. Where do I collect my PhD?
The bold bit is far less worrying than "non-material values". Not that they'll tell you what to think or value..."Now is the time to recognise the linkages between poverty, injustice and usurped property rights with current modes of governance. The Earth System Governance Project addresses this mission by promoting innovative and interdisciplinary research on access and allocation of both material resources and non-material values."
Usurped Property rights from whom?
Apart from which I always understood that the socialist view was that "all property is theft", or words to that effect.
Maybe I am not the only person easily confused. Where do I collect my PhD?
More fake climate nonsense.
They sent another satellite up to tell us car enthusiasts yet more lies....
Esa's Cryosat mission sees Antarctic ice losses double
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-274650...
"Antarctica is now losing about 160 billion tonnes of ice a year to the ocean - twice as much as when the continent was last surveyed.
The new assessment comes from Europe's Cryosat spacecraft, which has a radar instrument specifically designed to measure the shape of the ice sheet.
The melt loss from the White Continent is sufficient to push up global sea levels by around 0.43mm per year.
Scientists report the data in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
The new study incorporates three years of measurements from 2010 to 2013, and updates a synthesis of observations made by other satellites over the period 2005 to 2010."
They sent another satellite up to tell us car enthusiasts yet more lies....
Esa's Cryosat mission sees Antarctic ice losses double
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-274650...
"Antarctica is now losing about 160 billion tonnes of ice a year to the ocean - twice as much as when the continent was last surveyed.
The new assessment comes from Europe's Cryosat spacecraft, which has a radar instrument specifically designed to measure the shape of the ice sheet.
The melt loss from the White Continent is sufficient to push up global sea levels by around 0.43mm per year.
Scientists report the data in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
The new study incorporates three years of measurements from 2010 to 2013, and updates a synthesis of observations made by other satellites over the period 2005 to 2010."
motco said:
They have just decided that burning wood in power stations is worse than burning coal because it takes 100 years or more to re-absorb all the CO2 and there's more of it - we'll all be cooked by then apparently. BBC News Radio 4
Dig a hole, bury it 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_st...
TX.
zygalski said:
More fake climate nonsense.
They sent another satellite up to tell us car enthusiasts yet more lies....
Esa's Cryosat mission sees Antarctic ice losses double
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-274650...
"Antarctica is now losing about 160 billion tonnes of ice a year to the ocean - twice as much as when the continent was last surveyed.
The new assessment comes from Europe's Cryosat spacecraft, which has a radar instrument specifically designed to measure the shape of the ice sheet.
The melt loss from the White Continent is sufficient to push up global sea levels by around 0.43mm per year.
Scientists report the data in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
The new study incorporates three years of measurements from 2010 to 2013, and updates a synthesis of observations made by other satellites over the period 2005 to 2010."
What you did there - I saw it. You're so clever.They sent another satellite up to tell us car enthusiasts yet more lies....
Esa's Cryosat mission sees Antarctic ice losses double
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-274650...
"Antarctica is now losing about 160 billion tonnes of ice a year to the ocean - twice as much as when the continent was last surveyed.
The new assessment comes from Europe's Cryosat spacecraft, which has a radar instrument specifically designed to measure the shape of the ice sheet.
The melt loss from the White Continent is sufficient to push up global sea levels by around 0.43mm per year.
Scientists report the data in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
The new study incorporates three years of measurements from 2010 to 2013, and updates a synthesis of observations made by other satellites over the period 2005 to 2010."
Not clever in any way 
More at the link.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/23/climate-alar...
Meanwhile, where in this or any study does the special radar instrument manage to attribute causality for any measured ice mass change to human emissions of carbon dioxide? To save anyone the trouble of looking, the answer is nowhere.
Without established causality to human emissions of carbon dioxide, ice mass change does nothing for The Cause and is not evidence for AGW.
zygalski said:
More fake climate nonsense...to tell us car enthusiasts yet more lies...
ESA's Cryosat mission sees Antarctic ice losses double
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-274650...
That report, dated 19 May and like its hysterical equivalent in The Guardian, is quite wrong as was shown within days of publication. ESA's Cryosat mission sees Antarctic ice losses double
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-274650...
A few days after the Beeb et al got it wrong Watts said:
The climate alarmist reporters misunderstood the total Antarctica ice loss picture from this latest study and provided incorrect information in their articles. They appear to have confused this latest studies reported sea level rise contribution estimate of 0.45 mm per year which is about “double” prior study estimates of 0.19 mm per year as being applied to ice loss values which is incorrect.
Lies would be too strong a term, and it's not down to ESA but the kredulous klutz factor in journos at the BBC and the Eed Rag producing yet more drivel. Even so a comment at the review below thought it was rather naughty.Comment at WUWT said:
You give the Grauniad too much credit by suggesting that they are merely stupid, when in fact they are being outright mendacious.
What the study said was "the average change in ice sheet mass remains small in comparison to expected fluctuations in snow accumulation".More at the link.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/23/climate-alar...
Meanwhile, where in this or any study does the special radar instrument manage to attribute causality for any measured ice mass change to human emissions of carbon dioxide? To save anyone the trouble of looking, the answer is nowhere.
Without established causality to human emissions of carbon dioxide, ice mass change does nothing for The Cause and is not evidence for AGW.
Apparently "The Masses" may not have bought into the AGW concept quite as much as the Élite would like.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/23/climate_an...
Interestingly the question of how many align with one opinion or another can vary significantly by country and, sometimes, by question presentation.
Being a "survey" I doubt the specific results are very meaningful but the overall impression might be vaguely representative of something.
Einion Yrth said:
brenflys777 said:
Turbo bloke - you mentioned a study by Allan et al (2014) on another thread - can you point me towards a link or publisher please, I can't find it on the net and it sounds interesting, ta!
This one?http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/new-pa...
From the same source, another squeeze pushing tax gas out of the picture:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/new-pa...
"this phenomenon is however hardly reproduced by global and regional climate models"
Climate models in another fail non-shocker.
LongQ said:
Apparently "The Masses" may not have bought into the AGW concept quite as much as the Élite would like.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/23/climate_an...
Interestingly the question of how many align with one opinion or another can vary significantly by country and, sometimes, by question presentation.
Being a "survey" I doubt the specific results are very meaningful but the overall impression might be vaguely representative of something.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/23/climate_an...
Interestingly the question of how many align with one opinion or another can vary significantly by country and, sometimes, by question presentation.
Being a "survey" I doubt the specific results are very meaningful but the overall impression might be vaguely representative of something.
Survey said:
Climate: An excuse for tax hikes, (climate) scientists don't know what they're talking about
The relevant scientists agree with the public, here's Trenberth speaking on their behalf in a Climategate email to fellow Believer (Tom Wigley) with my emphasis."Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not!"
turbobloke said:
LongQ said:
Apparently "The Masses" may not have bought into the AGW concept quite as much as the Élite would like.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/23/climate_an...
Interestingly the question of how many align with one opinion or another can vary significantly by country and, sometimes, by question presentation.
Being a "survey" I doubt the specific results are very meaningful but the overall impression might be vaguely representative of something.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/23/climate_an...
Interestingly the question of how many align with one opinion or another can vary significantly by country and, sometimes, by question presentation.
Being a "survey" I doubt the specific results are very meaningful but the overall impression might be vaguely representative of something.
Survey said:
Climate: An excuse for tax hikes, (climate) scientists don't know what they're talking about
The relevant scientists agree with the public, here's Trenberth speaking on their behalf in a Climategate email to fellow Believer (Tom Wigley) with my emphasis."Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not!"
I assume the schemes are still around and being dreamed up on a regular basis but no longer hitting the media for some reason. Either too embarrassing for "Science" or well past the media's attention span I would guess.
Comment to Jo Nova made me smile...
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/the-mystery-of-co...
Commenter said:
TdeF
July 25, 2014 at 6:53 pm · Reply
The desperation to explain why the CO2 warming model is an abject failure has become a frantic search. Damn the fact that it means the prediction of global warming is wrong. Does anyone point out that the reason it is wrong is far less important than the fact that it is wrong? There is no crisis. Is it even possible that the theory is just wrong? Apparently not. It is, after all, science accepted by 97% of all people who agree with it. The other 3% will be found.
Now these true believers have concluded that the seas which receives 66% of all sunlight and are 400x as massive as the atmosphere might have an effect on climate. What happens to that light and heat is critical, because CO2 only has an effect on the way out as infra red, not the way in as visible and UV. So now we are told that the top bits are getting warm and the big bottom bit, 4km deep, has not changed in temperature or is very, very slightly cooler. It sounds like Ann Elk’s description of a dinosaur, bigger at one end than the other. How much did that revelation cost?
At what point does anyone accept that increasing CO2 is not warming the planet? Do we actually have to have an ice age?
So it now time, under the Newton’s Precautionary Principle, to start donating to the UN for Lord Monckton’s giant mechanical cricket bat to ward off asteroids. We will call it the Cricket Tax.
From here...July 25, 2014 at 6:53 pm · Reply
The desperation to explain why the CO2 warming model is an abject failure has become a frantic search. Damn the fact that it means the prediction of global warming is wrong. Does anyone point out that the reason it is wrong is far less important than the fact that it is wrong? There is no crisis. Is it even possible that the theory is just wrong? Apparently not. It is, after all, science accepted by 97% of all people who agree with it. The other 3% will be found.
Now these true believers have concluded that the seas which receives 66% of all sunlight and are 400x as massive as the atmosphere might have an effect on climate. What happens to that light and heat is critical, because CO2 only has an effect on the way out as infra red, not the way in as visible and UV. So now we are told that the top bits are getting warm and the big bottom bit, 4km deep, has not changed in temperature or is very, very slightly cooler. It sounds like Ann Elk’s description of a dinosaur, bigger at one end than the other. How much did that revelation cost?
At what point does anyone accept that increasing CO2 is not warming the planet? Do we actually have to have an ice age?
So it now time, under the Newton’s Precautionary Principle, to start donating to the UN for Lord Monckton’s giant mechanical cricket bat to ward off asteroids. We will call it the Cricket Tax.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/the-mystery-of-co...
4v6 said:
Been awhile since I frequented this thread.
Last time , before I left I'd been trying to get an epetition published that simply kept getting thrown back for obscure reasons or nonsense ones.
Imagine my surprise when I logged in to my email tonight for the first time in weeks and found that it's finally been approved.
Do please sign this and send it on to everyone who feels the same way, it's taken a while to get it approved but I hope it'll help to get things changed.
Http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/61879
You've got some publicity for your petition. I'd agree with most of his points but apparently all publicity is good! Either way trying to do something gets more kudos and is more useful than conforming with an irrational consensus because it's easy.Last time , before I left I'd been trying to get an epetition published that simply kept getting thrown back for obscure reasons or nonsense ones.
Imagine my surprise when I logged in to my email tonight for the first time in weeks and found that it's finally been approved.
Do please sign this and send it on to everyone who feels the same way, it's taken a while to get it approved but I hope it'll help to get things changed.
Http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/61879
Edited by 4v6 on Tuesday 22 July 19:59
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/07/...
Climate models fail yet again...say McKitrick and Vogelsang (2014).
"When we allow for a late-1970s step change in each radiosonde series (coinciding with a known natural event i.e. the Pacific Climate Shift) all three assign most of the post-1958 increase in both the LT and MT to the step change, and the trend slopes become essentially zero."
The clarifications in brackets are mine but mentioned elsewhere in the article, the rest is co-author McKitrick. LT is lower troposphere etc.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/07/24/new-paper-by-mc...
There can't be much room left on the AGW coffin for more nails.
"When we allow for a late-1970s step change in each radiosonde series (coinciding with a known natural event i.e. the Pacific Climate Shift) all three assign most of the post-1958 increase in both the LT and MT to the step change, and the trend slopes become essentially zero."
The clarifications in brackets are mine but mentioned elsewhere in the article, the rest is co-author McKitrick. LT is lower troposphere etc.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/07/24/new-paper-by-mc...
There can't be much room left on the AGW coffin for more nails.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff