backtop


Print 82 comment(s) - last by Dorkyman.. on Oct 25 at 11:50 PM


  (Source: Sodahead)
Droughts are also accused of being the work of evil old global warming

After a decade of flat temperatures and missed predictions by global warming's shrillest speculators, Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), is still ringing the alarm bell for all who care to listen.  While she lacks the evidence to prove it, in a recent interview she expressed that she was "sure" warming was to blame for a laundry list of recent natural disasters, including, but not limited to wildfires and droughts.

I. UN Chief Believes Warming is to Sure Warming Causes Wildfires

In an interview with Christiane Amanpour of Time Warner Inc.'s (TWXCNN news agency, Ms. Figueres also expressed indignation at the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Abbot has referred to more extreme global warming predictions as "total crap" and pushed to repeal Australia's carbon tax, having disbanded the nation's climate change board in September.

Australia has recently suffered from raging wildfires, and Ms. Figueres was quick to seize on this point, stating:

We are really already paying the price of carbon.  We are paying the price with wildfires, we are paying the price with droughts.


She admitted, though:

The World Meteorological Organization has not established a direct link between this wildfire and climate change – yet.  But what is absolutely clear is the science is telling us that there are increasing heat waves in Asia, Europe, and Australia; that there these will continue; that they will continue in their intensity and in their frequency.

Australia wildfire
A wildfire rages in Australia. [Image Source: EPA]

It's worth noting that Mr. Figueres holds no degree in climate science (nor do most UN officials tasked with setting warming policy), having achieved a Master's Degree in social anthropology.  While this career politician may be unversed in climatology from a technical standpoint, she's not afraid of making bold and emotional claims.

II. Climate Chief was "Born Impatient"

In another recent interview -- this time with BBC News -- Ms. Figueres appeared to admit that she lacks the patience to wait for a thorough scientific study on the impact and extent of warming before taking action.  She is quoted as saying:

I am always frustrated by the pace of the negotiations, I was born impatient.  We are moving way, way too slowly, but we are moving in the right direction and that's what gives me courage and hope.
...
I'm committed to climate change because of future generations, it is not about us, right? We're out of here.  I just feel that it is so completely unfair and immoral what we are doing to future generations, we are condemning them before they are even born.  
We have a choice about it, that's the point, we have a choice.  If it were inevitable then so be it, but we have a choice to change the future we are going to give our children.

Christiana Figueres
Christiana Figueres, UNFCCC executive secretary [Image Source: Getty Images]

Ms. Figueres -- who assumed her post at the UN in 2010 is currently working on drafting a global climate treaty, as per the decision reached at a 2011 summit in Durban, South Africa.  The treaty could look to implement carbon taxes, or other wealth redistribution measures supposedly aimed at "fighting warming", but it will have a tough road ahead, if temperatures remain flat over the next decade.

Sources: CNN, BBC News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Trash Article
By bug77 on 10/23/2013 11:45:41 AM , Rating: 3
Man, are you in state of disarray.

1. Nobody (in their right mind) says climate isn't changing. It always has and always will be. What is questioned is whether humans have any influence in the process.
2. All the science you hold dear did not predict temperature flat lining for a decade. For any reason. And it doesn't tell us how hot will be in 2050 for example. All their predictions so far were off. But it is absolutely sure increased CO2 will kill us all (so to speak).
3. Skeptics don't have to prove anything. Whoever brings a theory to the table does. That's how it works. Otherwise, you may find yourself jailed for murder tomorrow and asked to prove your innocence.


RE: Trash Article
By Mint on 10/23/2013 1:19:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All the science you hold dear did not predict temperature flat lining for a decade.
This "flatlining" myth is nothing but cherry picking, usually including the 1998 anomalous peak in the trendline.

In 2008, DailyTech produced a slew of articles talking about a "cooling trend" over the last decade:
https://www.google.com/search?q=cooling+trend+site...
Those predictions turned out to be complete busts.

Then DT went completely silent about trends in 2010, because that 1998 peak fell out of the decade span, so trends would show high warming.

Now? All of a sudden 15 years is the period of choice, and warming is "flatlining". But that's running out of steam as well, because by mid 1999, the record El Nino had completely passed.

I predict that by spring 2014, skeptics will move goal posts again, using either 16 years or 10 years as their period of choice.

FYI, here's a satellite temperature record from a skeptic site:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/uah-v5-6-globa...


RE: Trash Article
By ResStellarum on 10/23/2013 2:48:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This "flatlining" myth is nothing but cherry picking, usually including the 1998 anomalous peak in the trendline.

So you're admitting that it's possible to cherry pick a timeline to get whatever trend you want. Thanks, now I can safely ignore all those BS hockey-stick graphs you alarmists keep pumping out.


RE: Trash Article
By Mint on 10/23/2013 7:39:32 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, I'm not an alarmist. Go look at my other posts in this thread. AGW is real, but the benefits of preventing it are far too small for the cost of doing so. Humanity needs to (and will) adapt and move on.

Secondly, the tree-ring hockey-stick data is irrelevant. It isn't used for predictions, modelling, proof, nothing. So please retire that strawman.

Finally, why does anyone have to do any cherry-picking? Why not just look at the entire satellite data record?


RE: Trash Article
By Chyort on 10/23/2013 9:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
yes, 3 decades or so of satellite records will tell us everything... Mankind has only been thumping around this earth for millennia, which in itself is nothing but a flash in the pan compared to the age of the earth...

Ignore the fact that the earth heats and cools all the time, that we have had multiple ice ages and corresponding thawings.
My graph shows we have gone up a fraction of a degree in recent history, so clearly it will keep going up exactly the same amount, and in 30 years we will all be dead!
*Eyeroll*

Perhaps you are an alarmist, perhaps not. I dont care enough to check. But, at this point, there really isn't enough data. Trying to point at satellite records as proof is fairly ignorant, considering exactly how small a window it really is in our history. A fact that keeps being proven every time someone claims rampant global warming(Or global cooling, google it for a laugh) and insists the only way to fix the problem is to throw more money at it.

That is the problem, alarmists on both sides trying to justify a paycheck, and provide the results their political masters want. Instead of doing it for pure science.


RE: Trash Article
By Mint on 10/24/2013 1:01:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ignore the fact that the earth heats and cools all the time, that we have had multiple ice ages and corresponding thawings.
Those don't even have 1/10th the rate of temperature change we see in the satellite record.

quote:
That is the problem, alarmists on both sides trying to justify a paycheck, and provide the results their political masters want. Instead of doing it for pure science.
Once again, what is your proof that there is so much more corruption in climate science than any other science? These accusations are pathetic.

I guarantee you that medicine/biology and engineering are fields where individuals have orders of magnitude more financial gain at stake with experimental outcome.


RE: Trash Article
By SPOOFE on 10/24/2013 4:21:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Those don't even have 1/10th the rate of temperature change we see in the satellite record.

The satellite record has been around for a geologically insignificant period of time, far too short to derive any conclusions. For someone so concerned about "cherry picking", you sure seem way too eager to go about "cherry picking" yourself.


RE: Trash Article
By Mint on 10/25/2013 2:23:28 PM , Rating: 2
Chyort is the one who is using geological events to ignore the satellite record, not me. If you're going to do that, then you have to find evidence that this rate of temperature rise is at least somewhat common.

You obviously don't understand what cherry picking means. It involves selecting a subset of available data.

Skeptics don't like the surface record, so the satellite record is all we have, and as long as the whole set is used, it's not cherry picking.


RE: Trash Article
By Moishe on 10/23/2013 5:18:49 PM , Rating: 2
I predict that in the next ten years there will be another alarmist, the-sky-is-falling, global warming or cooling, or peak oil, or whatever.

Why? Because the people up the ladder need things to use to distract the masses and keep them busy and panicked while they fleece them.

You don't have to live very long to see the pattern. Every other year there is a new fear-fad. There is a new way to manipulate people.

I've been ignoring this BS for years and so far, I can always look back and see how false the claims were and how stupid people were for jumping on the bandwagon.

I'm a skeptic because I see liars all around me and I'm cynical. Prove it and I'll believe you. Otherwise, shut your pie-hole.


"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki