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

Trash Article
By cknobman on 10/23/13, Rating: 0
RE: Trash Article
By Arsynic on 10/23/2013 10:15:05 AM , Rating: 4
Climate Change Alarmism is full of nothing but rhetoric and spin.


RE: Trash Article
By frelled on 10/23/2013 10:39:30 AM , Rating: 2
What is funny is that Climate Change Scientists bring actual science to the table. What do skeptics do, they throw a fit and use words like alarmism as their reason for why climate change doesn't exist. The truth is you have no scientific evidence to show that climate change isn't happening other than your feelings. Climate change is real, it has already been proven by science. Even skeptic scientists hired by right wing politicians have changed their mind. Skeptics are merely an uneducated vocal minority, and a tiny one at that.


RE: Trash Article
By WLee40 on 10/23/13, Rating: 0
RE: Trash Article
By Dorkyman on 10/23/2013 11:51:11 AM , Rating: 4
No, not agreed.

The models are a lousy fit and the most devoted adherents to the Climate Change Religion are currently scratching their heads, wondering why the climate refuses to follow the models.

Trust me, many followers treat it as a religion, and as such there is a strong "faith" aspect that defies introspection and challenge.

Yes, there are Skeptics who are bible-thumping buffoons, but they are on the fringes. So try to keep an open mind. That's probably the most important attribute a scientist can have.


RE: Trash Article
By heffeque on 10/23/13, Rating: -1
RE: Trash Article
By Spuke on 10/23/2013 12:36:51 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
It has nothing to do with faith.
Re-read his post because that's not what he said at all.


RE: Trash Article
By maugrimtr on 10/24/2013 8:57:21 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
No, not agreed. The models are a lousy fit and the most devoted adherents to the Climate Change Religion are currently scratching their heads, wondering why the climate refuses to follow the models.


There is no Climate Change Religion. The fact you bring up religion at all equates a science reliant on the Scientific Method with Christianity that is reliant on people blindly believing that a magician turned water into wine 2000 years ago.

One can be proven or disproven. The other is an article of faith. As a Catholic (and a firm believer!) I know the difference. Of course, the Jesus I know, the guy who ran around the countryside in utter poverty preaching to bureaucrats, thieves, prostitutes, adulterers and corrupt politicians about giving away all their worldly possessions and helping the poor and oppressed would hardly recognise religion for what it's become as a political toy in America.

quote:
Trust me, many followers treat it as a religion, and as such there is a strong "faith" aspect that defies introspection and challenge. Yes, there are Skeptics who are bible-thumping buffoons, but they are on the fringes. So try to keep an open mind. That's probably the most important attribute a scientist can have.


There are those who confuse science and religion at both extremes. What's important is not painting everyone with the same brush. Am I expected to despise and loathe all Republicans for the doings one small group of lunatics in Congress? I hope not. Yet that's what modern politics wants. I support gay marriage, I think universal healthcare is a worthy goal, and being descended from immigrants fleeing a potato famine I don't feel the slightest hostility towards immigrants at all. I also think Evolution is a clever and good theory. Apparently that makes me a Democrat despite disagreeing with most of their economic policies.

If someone marries a Republican with a Scientist and throws in a little Christian, I'd vote for them over any Democrat. Unfortunately common sense and charity has deserted the right in the past decade.

For the obvious, climate change is real. That's not even debated by wackos any more. The debate focuses on whether it's natural or cause by Humans. The evidence to date is heavily in favor of Humans being the root cause. You also very neatly failed to elaborate on the flat temperatures over the past decade - they are flat. There is reversal of global warming - just a 10 year weird flatness in a science which examines centuries. Learn a wee bit of statistics - temporary fluctuations do not negate a long term trend. Any moron with basic math should know that. The cause of the flatness is a huge topic in climate science which is good. It means the theories and models are wrong and need revising. That's good science - not blind faith inviting us to ignore the obvious because of our gut feelings and what some idiot on the TV says.


RE: Trash Article
By bah12 on 10/23/2013 1:09:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The truth is you have no scientific evidence to show that climate change isn't happening other than your feelings.
Your own point of view is one of faith. It isn't the party claiming there is a giant pink elephant in the room that needs to prove it, it is the party that is claiming there is.

In other words you cannot say something is true, simply because the opposition cannot prove it isn't. If I claim there is a God/Pink Elephant/Global warming, then it is up to me to prove it 100% not the other way around.

Your illogical position is the one of faith. Your side postulates a theory, but instead of defending its flaws resorts to a faith based argument of "prove you're right then".


RE: Trash Article
By Yojimbo on 10/23/2013 4:03:40 PM , Rating: 2
Everything has to do with faith. Science is a matter of bounding the faith required. And how much to this end has climate science accomplished so far? Their predictions seem to be grossly wrong more often than not. They have fit the historical data extremely well, but they are unable to tell us anything about the future. Give me enough parameters to play with and I can fit any historical data of anything extremely well, but that doesn't mean I know a lick about what it all means. So, then, what does their failure tell us about the usefulness of their models? And how can we implement policies based on these models in light of these failures? It seems it requires an awful lot of faith.


RE: Trash Article
By maugrimtr on 10/24/2013 9:30:37 AM , Rating: 3
Faith and science are mutual enemies. Anyone who allows faith to influence science is being stupid. Incidentally, Einstein himself made this mistake more than once. While an agnostic, he believed that the Universe was entirely deterministic. This pushed him into rejecting quantum theory where things devolve into probabilities and unpredictable outcomes. Guess what - he was wrong. God does indeed play dice with every single particle in the Universe.

The problem is that your argument requires the vast majority of scientists to make this same mistake at the same time. That's just ridiculous and into conspiracy theory territory. You simply WANT it to be true which makes you just as mistaken as Einstein once was in creating elaborate excuses.

quote:
They have fit the historical data extremely well, but they are unable to tell us anything about the future.


They tell us the future will be warmer. That prediction has held true since it was first made decades ago. A flat temperature for a decade doth not a cooler planet make.

quote:
Give me enough parameters to play with and I can fit any historical data of anything extremely well, but that doesn't mean I know a lick about what it all means.


Doesn't even make sense. The data is based on physical measurements. They don't mutate. Any scientist can grab the raw data which is why manipulation, if it ever were to occur, would require every scientist on the planet to be part of the conspiracy.

quote:
So, then, what does their failure tell us about the usefulness of their models? And how can we implement policies based on these models in light of these failures? It seems it requires an awful lot of faith.


Which failure? What model? Whose policies?

Data damn it. Science demands DATA. Stop suggesting evildoing and be specific. Let's take the obvious. The new IPCC projections have been reduced from the last report commissioned. Rationally, that means the last batch of models used in climate science were wrong. This also implies the new set are also wrong. Of course they’re wrong. Find a scientist telling you they are right and please, by all means, shoot the liar. Gravity is also wrong. We don’t know what it is – we just have a really good model to explain it. Relativity. We know that Einstein was wrong because relativity and quantum theory cannot be reconciled. Our two best MODELS for understanding the Universe – approximations, failed predictions, WRONG.

We still use them for predictions though. Luckily, at the scale we currently need for technology and space travel they are actually very good. Try building a faster than light engine, a wormhole to another galaxy or universe, or building a CPU which manipulates quarks, and they suck eggs.

We use the best models available knowing that they are wrong but probably reliable enough for our current needs. To a scientist it’s wholly unsatisfactory but you can’t spend the next million years stuck with “Zeus is angry and throwing lightning bolts!” or “magic make red food fall from tree when sun god tired” while we wait for a completely accurate FACT to emerge.

Climate science is no different. We work with what we have. The alternative is waiting a few thousand years for a fully complete understanding. Of course, your descendants might all have evolved gills by then if the worst came to pass ;).


RE: Trash Article
By Yojimbo on 10/24/13, Rating: 0
RE: Trash Article
By Moishe on 10/23/2013 5:03:13 PM , Rating: 3
His point is actually well stated. Global warming is largely a religion, which can be defined by believing something that is not or cannot be proven by science.

The whole article is about this UN lady who "believes" something to be true even though science does not back her up.

How is that NOT faith?


RE: Trash Article
By maugrimtr on 10/25/2013 4:55:31 AM , Rating: 2
Scientists also believe that there was a Big Bang, that the Universe will expand forever, that there are multiple universes, that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light (Inflation), that all particles are probably strings, that black holes conserve information on their surface, that life does not require God, that an itty bitty amino acid can grow into you after 4 billion years of evolution, and ...

Welcome to Science. We have a theory for everything. Theories are not beliefs - they are our best understanding of the universe given the data we can currently access. Once you figure that out, you'll realise how utterly ridiculous you sound in playing the religion card. Unlike science, nobody can ever prove if that vagrant in sandals really did rise from the dead 2000 years ago.

Lastly, the article clearly stated the "UN lady" is not a scientist. If you think she represents science and thus validates your own dataless belief, you're seriously mistaken.


RE: Trash Article
By troysavary on 10/23/2013 11:44:49 AM , Rating: 4
What "real science"? Computer models that have been consistently wrong? A "hockey stick" graph? Falsified data? Only taking temperature reading from urban reporting stations? You tell me when I hit on the "real science" that you are bringing to the table.


RE: Trash Article
By Mint on 10/23/13, Rating: -1
RE: Trash Article
By ResStellarum on 10/23/2013 2:37:32 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Geez, where on earth do you get your information from, Alex Jones? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temper... Yeah, look at that gross manipulation of data from urban stations.

And if I draw a line from 1998 to 2013 and beyond it will look the exact opposite.

Oh no! The Ice Age is coming:
http://imgur.com/kmLSrUU


RE: Trash Article
By heffeque on 10/23/13, Rating: -1
RE: Trash Article
By Moishe on 10/23/2013 5:13:26 PM , Rating: 3
You mean... like the falsified data from the PRO-warming crowd?

See, this is what bugs sane people about this whole global warming debate.

The PRO-warming crowd lies and fails to prove their case.
BUT:
--They act like it's proven
--They belittle and harass those who disagree
--They want the world to jump to conclusions and base policy on those conclusions

There are people on the ANTI-warming side who are a bit nuts too, but I haven't heard of any falsified data. I've heard more rhetoric and talk than anything.

Then there is the rest of us who simply want people to actual prove something before the whole tax payer base is required to shell out a lot of money to fund it.

I.E. Stop lying, stop trying to take my money, stop trying to guilt me into believing your way, stop trying to use politics to force everyone else into this global warming religion.

I think it's humorous that the same people who use faith to buy into global warming are quick to bash more traditional religions. But then... I guess that's human nature.


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.


RE: Trash Article
By Florinator on 10/23/2013 11:47:27 AM , Rating: 4
Oh, but there is plenty of evidence... While the Arctic ice sheet is getting thinner, the Antarctic ice sheet has been getting thicker and no one says a peep about that. Mount Shasta has a lot more snow because of increased precipitation in the area (it's not all drought and fire everywhere).

Take a look here, if anything, the number of skeptics has increased over the last years, not decreased.

http://www.nipccreport.org/about/about.html


RE: Trash Article
By ResStellarum on 10/23/2013 2:54:37 PM , Rating: 2
They conveniently ignore facts like those Florinator. It doesn't fit in with their policy of selective disclosure.

It's like there's never been a drought in history before lol. What about the one that, you know, ended the Pharaohs. That must of been caused by all the carbon produced by those camp fires surely?? Hehe


RE: Trash Article
By Mint on 10/23/2013 7:42:59 PM , Rating: 4
Anyone who uses single events to prove or disprove global warming is an idiot. Period.


RE: Trash Article
By Chyort on 10/23/2013 9:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone who tries to use 30 years of satellite records to prove Artificial Global Warming is an idiot. Period.

Anyone who makes statements like this, and ends it with "Period." is an idiot as well... (Yes, this includes me)


RE: Trash Article
By Mint on 10/24/2013 1:05:06 PM , Rating: 2
What makes you think that's the only proof?

As far as I can see, you don't even know the basics of AGW.


RE: Trash Article
By SPOOFE on 10/24/2013 4:23:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As far as I can see, you don't even know the basics of AGW.

As far as I can see, you don't even know the basics of significant geological development, else you wouldn't be harping on "the satellite record" so much.

When your satellites give us a few thousand years' worth of data then we'll all drop to our knees and praying to The Great Gore to forgive our carbon sins.


RE: Trash Article
By Mint on 10/25/2013 2:33:55 PM , Rating: 2
The satellite record is the only thing denialists will accept as evidence of temperature. They don't like surface measurements, tree rings, ice cores, isotopes, etc. That's the only reason I mention it.

If satellite evidence on geological time scales is the only evidence that you will accept, then step out of the thread and STFU, because there is no possible measurement in your lifetime that will ever prove AGW to you.


RE: Trash Article
By Dr of crap on 10/23/2013 12:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
Thing is you can take that data AND prove both points. That being that there is and that there is not planet warming. Its all in how you set the data up!

Since we Don't know YET lets just drop the fighting - PLEASE!!!!!!!


RE: Trash Article
By Tony Swash on 10/23/2013 1:02:50 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
they throw a fit and use words like alarmism as their reason for why climate change doesn't exist. The truth is you have no scientific evidence to show that climate change isn't happening other than your feelings. Climate change is real, it has already been proven by science.


Nobody claims that climate change is not happening. The two main issues are:

a) How much was the recent warm period at the end of the 20th century caused by human CO2 emissions and how much was it caused by natural climate fluctuation.

b) Are the risks of ongoing warming so great so as to justify the costs associated with significantly reducing CO2 emissions.

There is an ancillary controversy about how accurate the global land surface temperature is in the period prior to satellite measurements and thus how much warming there really was in the last 150 years but that is a much less important issue and usually revolves around arguments about a fraction of one degree C.

On point (a). The whole argument to support the theory that the bulk of the warming at the end of the 20th century was caused by human CO2 emissions is based upon climate models. The actual amount or rate of warming during the 20th century is not unusual by recent climate history standards and so the argument that it requires something other than natural factors (called forcings in climatologist speak) in order to be explained rests upon the various climate computer models that climatologists have built. These models claim to show that no known natural forcing agent could have caused the late 20th century warming and as it is known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which was increasing in the period in question the conclusion was reached by some that CO2 was the culprit.

What's important to bear in mind is that climate models are not evidence. Climate models are just theories written in the form of equations and algorithms and like all theories climate models require confirmation by comparison to actual real world data. Here the models have run into difficulty as the models confidently predicted a number of things, including an ongoing warming trend and a reduction in sea ice around Antarctica, which did not happen. Global temperatures have now not shown any warming trend for over 15 years even though CO2 has continued to rise and sea ice around Antarctica has not only grown but just recently reached a new all time record. So perfectly reasonable people are wondering just how good the climate models are and if they contain significant flaws then the foundation of the position that CO2 is the main driver of warming becomes very shaky indeed.

On point (b) even if CO2 is a major driver of warming the issue of the costs/benefits of decarbonisation is one that should be debated. If as looks likely the climate CO2 sensitivity is not as high as was feared then we have ample time to literally power ahead with global economic growth so that when we have to adapt to a significantly warmer world later in the century we will be doing so from a much stronger economic position. I think that anyone who looks at the statistics of global poverty must agree that global poverty, which is killing tens of millions right now every year, is the major issue facing humanity and an issue that can only be addressed by more growth, more energy and a greater exploitation of all energy sources including fossil fuels.


RE: Trash Article
By foxalopex on 10/23/2013 2:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that poverty isn't helping the situation at all. People who are poor have no choice but to destroy the environment to survive. When it comes down to the planet or their immediate ability to live, it's understandable that they would pick the latter.

BUT at the same time realize that exploiting all available resources will NOT help either. Due to the way our civilization is built, even if you exploited all the resources, there will always be the elite with an uneven share of the resources. They will simply take more at the top and leave the same mess to the folks at the bottom. I know a lot of folks would like to believe we left nature and the survival of the fittest law to nature but in many ways we still sadly live out that rule in our daily modern lives.


RE: Trash Article
By Dorkyman on 10/25/2013 11:50:55 PM , Rating: 2
Well said, Tony.

There's another factor: I think it was a study released in the UK a week or two ago that concluded that an increase in global temps would be a net GAIN for humanity, not a calamity. I haven't seen the study itself, only heard about it, but apparently it was very objectively written.


RE: Trash Article
By Moishe on 10/23/2013 5:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
BS. There is some science, but it gets discredited when they ignore some other science and insert their own agenda and some lies into the mix.

What do you expect? If you have a scientific point, then prove it without bias. Otherwise even if you're partially right, nobody believes you.


RE: Trash Article
By Flunk on 10/23/2013 10:25:42 AM , Rating: 2
You don't read this site much do you?


RE: Trash Article
By NicodemusMM on 10/23/2013 10:51:17 AM , Rating: 3
You are correct. Over half of the article is quoting or referencing comments by Ms. Figueres, so yes, there is an abnormally high amount of rhetoric and spin.


RE: Trash Article
By NellyFromMA on 10/23/2013 1:00:05 PM , Rating: 2
They like when you comment, especially when the articles are sensational.


What degree do you hold?
By frelled on 10/23/13, Rating: 0
RE: What degree do you hold?
By tng on 10/23/2013 10:43:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How do you dispute the fact that 99% of actual climate and non climate scientists believe in global warming.
Where do you get this from? The UN agenda? Really, it is disputed, and I highly doubt that 99% of climate scientists agree with AGW.

The rates of GW for the past decade have leveled off despite what the UN has said. If this were about Climate Change, the UN would have looked at this and re-evaluated. Since it is not about Climate Change at all, it is about making sure that we punish rich countries and giving more money and resources to those who have not earned it. It is also about making a very few select people in the world very rich off of hysteria.


RE: What degree do you hold?
By frelled on 10/23/2013 11:11:10 AM , Rating: 2
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

So it is 97%, I stand corrected. There is also the fact that no internationally recognized body of science has disagreed with the scientific consensus that global warming is real and that it has been caused by man.

So it is disputed? Find one recognized scientific body that disputes global warming that isn't funded by someone with an agenda *cough* Rove *cough*.

If you truly believe they have leveled off, you haven't been paying attention. Pattern changes in temperature and jet streams have caused a few places to actually level off, but ocean tempuratures are still rising and becoming more acidic. Glaciers are still melting. Droughts are still happening. Even if you ignore the extreme phenomena, regular weather patterns have already changed. I live in the Midwest and have seen winters be less harsh, rain levels decrease, allergens increase, etc. The posters on this site can deny all they want that it doesn't exist, but you are the minority.


RE: What degree do you hold?
By Mint on 10/23/2013 11:26:23 AM , Rating: 2
That consensus is only about whether AGW exists. The next step is quantifying it. But let's assume the IPCC is giving us good number there, and 97% of people agree on that, too.

It's another matter entirely to figure out what damage - economic and environmental - is caused by that warming. There is no consensus there, and the wildfires mentioned by this article have little supporting evidence of a meaningful connection.

Then it's yet another matter to figure out whether it's more economical/moral to adapt to warming, counter it with engineered cooling, or prevent emissions in the first place. There is even less consensus there.


RE: What degree do you hold?
By spamreader1 on 10/23/2013 11:28:11 AM , Rating: 2
The reverse of this is the same too though.

"So it is disputed? Find one recognized scientific body that disputes global warming that isn't funded by someone with an agenda *cough* Rove *cough*."

Global warming scientific studies are also funded by someone with an agenda. Drumming up fear drums up dollars to keep them funded.


RE: What degree do you hold?
By Mint on 10/23/2013 12:03:50 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Global warming scientific studies are also funded by someone with an agenda. Drumming up fear drums up dollars to keep them funded.
This is such a pathetic argument.

You can state this to disparage virtually ALL science. Every medical researcher wants his specialty to be the next big biotech boom. Every engineer wants his specialty to be the next silicon valley darling.

Just stop this anti-science propaganda.


RE: What degree do you hold?
By spamreader1 on 10/23/2013 2:28:19 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose you missed the point. All science should be questioned. How else are breakthrough's made? What shouldn't be done is creating alarmism in reguards to pushing an agenda.

Question everything, else we'd still be believing the world is flat and no human can survive the 55mph barrier...


RE: What degree do you hold?
By Mint on 10/23/2013 7:54:59 PM , Rating: 4
What makes you think GW is being less questioned than any result from biology, physics, etc?

I agree alarmism is counter productive, but the best way to counter alarmism is the same way you counter bad science: show that it's wrong. The first step is show that science has only made the case that AGW exists, not that it's time to take action now.

Denying AGW with cherry-picking, misuse of thermodynamics, personal attacks, accusations of falsification, etc are the wrong way to go about it.


RE: What degree do you hold?
By tng on 10/23/2013 3:02:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Find one recognized scientific body...
Well for one the IPCC is really a political body as is the UN. would you believe a report from BP saying that oil spills does not cause any environmental damage? A report from Phillip Morris saying that smoking is beneficial to your health? Why would you not question something from the UN who wants to run the world via it's proxy Climate Change?

Second on the 97%, when that came statement came out years ago, it was found that many of the scientists on the list did not agree with the findings and thought that they should be more research, but their names were used anyhow.


RE: What degree do you hold?
By tng on 10/23/2013 10:47:48 AM , Rating: 2
Also seems funny that you have logged on here just to talk comment on this, since you have no prior comments for the past year. You just find this article by accident or are you the person who is paid to refute these things?


RE: What degree do you hold?
By WLee40 on 10/23/2013 10:56:01 AM , Rating: 2
No, I have seen the same statistic. Look on weather underground site and other weather sites, I can't remember where I have seen it. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that global warming/climate change is real and that a significant portion is a result of human activities. Not all of it is a result of humans but at least some of it is. Quit putting your head in the sand and do a little research or listen to the experts consensus.


RE: What degree do you hold?
By NicodemusMM on 10/23/2013 11:01:13 AM , Rating: 2
Your referencing the WUO and claiming that others have their head in the sand? Talk about a lack of credibility.

You may wish to apply your last sentence to yourself, but with less bias and more logic and reason.


RE: What degree do you hold?
By WLee40 on 10/23/2013 11:10:45 AM , Rating: 2
I just don't know why people can have such strong opinions and have no scientific basis. It goes both ways. I think many of the naysayers are brainwashed too. I don't think anybody understands it enough and I agree that the alarmists are going too far also. I'll wait about 20 years and then maybe science will have a better handle on it...


RE: What degree do you hold?
By tng on 10/23/2013 3:07:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think many of the naysayers are brainwashed too. I don't think anybody understands it enough and I agree that the alarmists are going too far also. I'll wait about 20 years and then maybe science will have a better handle on it..
OK maybe we should start doing something more, but I hold any organization that wants to tax us out of the problem suspect. This is where the UN wants to go with the solution, carbon taxes.


RE: What degree do you hold?
By troysavary on 10/23/2013 10:54:39 AM , Rating: 3
Actually, many people disagree with the "science" behind AGW, but didn't speak out for fear of retribution. Consensus by intimidation is not valid science.

No one was denying that there was, and I emphasize WAS, a warming trend. The doubt is that man is causing the warming. The Earth warms and cools in cycles that exactly match solar output, and has always done so. The warming cycle is over and we are heading into a cooling cycle. The peaks and valleys are always where the most extreme weather takes place.


RE: What degree do you hold?
By WLee40 on 10/23/2013 11:03:24 AM , Rating: 2
It is logical that the cooling and warming cycles have been going on for 4.5 billion years and will continue. We are exiting out of the last glacial period and are in an interglacial. Perhaps human activity can push us back into the "hot house" cycle and out of the ice age cycle. Nobody knows for sure, scientists don't seem to have a full understanding of what is going to happen and I certainly am not qualified to predict. All I have to go on is my limited understanding and the expert consensus.


RE: What degree do you hold?
By NicodemusMM on 10/23/2013 10:57:27 AM , Rating: 2
99%?

Please. You're a terrible liar. At least make up numbers that are plausible. "99% of actual climate and non climate scientists" is inaccurate enough to sail right past funny and into the land of brain-washed idiocy.


RE: What degree do you hold?
By mfenn on 10/23/13, Rating: 0
RE: What degree do you hold?
By Dorkyman on 10/23/2013 11:59:50 AM , Rating: 3
Tell you what. While I'm not in agreement with Mick over everything, how about YOU writing a column? Something new every day, okay? And make it interesting to us all.


For how long will this farce/scam continue?
By rpsgc on 10/23/2013 10:10:38 AM , Rating: 1
What intelligent people say:
It's the Sun, not us, that has the biggest impact on the Earth's climate. After all, ice is/was melting all over the Solar System, not just on Earth. Furthermore, anyone with half a brain knows that CO2 is not a pollutant. Less CO2 = less plants = less food for us = less oxygen = (much) lower temperatures

What global warming alarmists say:
WE MUST REDUCE CO2 EMISSIONS!! WHO CARES IF CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT AND IS ACTUALLY IMPORTANT TO PLANT LIFE WHICH IN TURN IS IMPORTANT TO ANIMAL LIFE BECAUSE SOME ANIMALS EAT PLANTS AND THEN OTHER ANIMALS EAT THOSE SAME ANIMALS AND WE ALSO EAT THOSE PLANT EATING ANIMALS AND THAT WITHOUT CO2 THE EARTH WOULD FREEZE! BAN CO2!!!




RE: For how long will this farce/scam continue?
By Arsynic on 10/23/2013 10:18:40 AM , Rating: 2
The neo communists that are pushing this agenda hate humanity. They have been the loud shrill voice screaming about over-population. They believe humanity itself is a pollutant.


By tng on 10/23/2013 10:32:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The neo communists... ...believe humanity itself is a pollutant.
Then they should lower their carbon footprint and save the earth by finding the nearest cliff and jumping off of it.


By troysavary on 10/23/2013 10:36:17 AM , Rating: 2
Don't you know that you are personally responsible for the temperature on Venus because of your refusal to give up your SUV? If you don't stop, naked green chicks will be flooding the Earth, fleeing their now uninhabitable Venus. Children will see those perky green boobies all over. Can you live with that?

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!


By nafhan on 10/23/2013 10:59:37 AM , Rating: 3
According to rpsgc: most scientists are not intelligent people.

Also, plants grow better with fertilizer. Please explain to me how excess fertilizer runoff is not pollution and is improving the environment. If you can do so in all caps, I'd appreciate it, as that'll help me understand your point.


RE: For how long will this farce/scam continue?
By exeedorbit on 10/23/2013 11:20:59 AM , Rating: 2
Just because plants require CO2, doesn't mean that an overabundance of it isn't harmful. Remember, too much of anything is bad for you. And after a certain point, the drawbacks will outweigh the benefits.

This is not a statement to try to prove global warming is real or not. There's just a big flaw in your logic.


By Dorkyman on 10/23/2013 11:55:44 AM , Rating: 2
You're right, too much of something is bad. So let's put this in perspective. Imagine a basketball arena with 10,000 fans. That represents the atmosphere. Four of those fans are wearing pink shirts. Those represent the CO2 concentration. Used to be three guys, now four.

And plants wish there were MORE CO2. Ask any greenhouse owner.


RE: For how long will this farce/scam continue?
By Mint on 10/23/2013 11:41:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What intelligent people say:
It's the Sun

LOL

You do realize that our most precise measurements of the sun have determined that it is physically impossible for it to affect temperatures by more than 0.1-0.2 degrees, right?

No, ice was not melting all over the solar system. Stop believing everything you read from guys with no science background. Dust storms on Mars can change the average atmospheric temperature by 40 degrees. Looking at Mars' ice caps is the dumbest way imaginable to measure the sun's output.

What intelligent people say? No, it's what people talking out of their ass say.


By ClownPuncher on 10/23/2013 12:47:56 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't the news say that the Australian wildfires were caused by two young boys?


By Mint on 10/23/2013 11:17:32 AM , Rating: 4
of humanitarian things to do with money.

The last time I did calculations with the IPCC numbers, even meager measures like the production tax credit (2.2c/kWh) worked out to $5 trillion to reduce the earth's temp by 0.1 degrees C.

You could cure world hunger and several major diseases for one tenth of that kind of money.




By kwrzesien on 10/23/2013 11:27:28 AM , Rating: 2
You can never "cure" world hunger...


By Mint on 10/23/2013 11:58:21 AM , Rating: 2
Stop getting into semantics. If you get rid of even 80% of it, that's damn near a cure in my book.

It cost $200 to feed a child for 2 years to prevent the lifelong health and cognitive issues of stunting. So we can make 1 billion people more productive over their life, or we can reduce global temperatures by 0.004 degrees. Hmm, tough choice...


Its nonsense.
By stmok on 10/23/2013 3:43:09 PM , Rating: 5
Considering I'm from Australia, here's the basic gist for Americans and anyone else.

(1) A Carbon Tax was rammed down our throats by the Left of politics. Despite the promise of no Carbon Tax.

...Here was the promise in 2010 Federal Election by former Prime Minister.
=> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5pzSvSCUZo

Here is a video of the bastards celebrating the need to raise my electricity bill by AUD$300.
=> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D54U4boBc0w

(2) On Sept 7th, we voted them out. That is to say, we dropped the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and their extreme Left environmental friends known as The Greens party.

One of the issues was the destruction of the Carbon Tax. Most Australians want it gone!

After 7th Sept, the Liberal-National Party (Centre-Right/Conservative) party was voted in. Alongside various independents who lean to the Right.

(3) The first action of the new Prime Minister was to kill the Climate Commission. Because it was simply nothing more than taxpayer funded advocacy department headed by a Climate Change activist named Tim Flannery.

Here is an example of Tim Flannery ranting...
=> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeNDSeknn_c

The Prime Minister (Abbott) wants to also tear down the Carbon Tax. This has freaked out the Climate Change folks. Hence the reason for all of them to start complaining. From Al Gore to David Suzuki; and now Christiana Figueres.

Abbott has the numbers in the Lower House. He should have the numbers in the Upper House (The Senate). Everyone knows the Carbon Tax is likely to be canned.

(4) Now, in relation to our current bush fires in Sydney.

Firstly, our native bushland is filled with Eucalyptus trees. We call them gum trees locally. Part of the life cycle of a gum tree is fire. Fire is Nature's way to clear the land.

Before white folks came along, Aboriginals used to set fire to the bush land as part of the cycle. They knew how to manage the land with their traditions.

In the last 30 years or so, environmentalists have infiltrated our Govts (Local Council, State, and Federal), and have basically saturated the compliance laws with so much "green tape" that it is extremely costly to fight them.

Something as simple as clearing the land needs endless bureaucratic form filling. (Green tape is to intentionally raise the bar of compliance such that you won't even try because it simply too time consuming and legally costly to fight for common sense!)

So what happens? Years of unburned "fuel" is built up in the bush land. As a result, this is a firestorm waiting to happen. All it needs is an ignition source. (Eucalyptus trees are highly flammable in the Australian Summer. ie: high winds and low humidity dries them out.)

And when a major uncontrollable bush fire does come along, the same environmental idiots that caused the problem to begin with say its because of Climate Change!

Nonsense! Its them! These idiots who have never fought a bush fire in their lives! Who don't understand that gum trees need to burn as part of their life cycle! Who don't understand it is their meddling that has caused these things!

In fact, there is a growing anger against environmentalism in Australia! Carbon Tax, extremely intense bush fires, tyrannical rules in how we should live, etc. (We stripped the Greens of their political power in Sept 7th Election and gave it to Independents who weren't fond of them.)

(5) The recent bush fires are started by various sources. These include:
=> Kids and idiots starting them for fun.
=> Poorly maintained power lines.
=> Recklessly discarded cigarettes.
=> Live fire exercises by the Australian Army.

It has NOTHING to do with Climate Change.

Here in Australia, popularity of Climate Change has fallen from 33% (2007) to approx 8% (2013). The taxpayer funded TV stations are desperate to push the issue. Its just turning Australians off even more!

Effectively, Australians are sick of politics and activism. The endless exaggerations to push an agenda that hurts us is really doing nothing more than piss us off.




By foxalopex on 10/23/2013 1:00:49 PM , Rating: 2
Frankly, I find it hilarious that people would honestly believe that burning the literally river of oil we use has no effect on the the environment. Never mind the other toxic crap that ends up in the air. Check out some of our mining operations that literally move mountains using oil as power. I seem to recall we actually move more soil than erosion does naturally on the whole planet now. We're also in a major extinction event. That's right we're wiping out as many species so quickly that we're on par with some of the worst natural extinction events in history.

So let's say CO2 is causing some global warming at the levels we produce. It makes sense that the Earth is a finely tuned engine and throwing even a penny into an engine is likely to cause some issues. The question is would any of us be willing to give up a little of our comfortable / modern life to protect our future or help each other a little more? The sad truth is we probably won't.

I'm not saying the world will end. Weather patterns will likely change, there will be more flooding on the coast and probably folks living on the edge (3rd world nations) will experience more deaths. The world will likely become a worse place to live but not impossible and future generations might be mad at us.

I think we should at least be looking at this as a potential issue and we should be seeing if there are alternatives without ripping each other off. It's better than sitting tight and believing that we have absolutely no effect on this world at all.




By SPOOFE on 10/24/2013 4:27:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It makes sense that the Earth is a finely tuned engine and throwing even a penny into an engine is likely to cause some issues.

More water evaporates and subsequently condenses. Second law of thermodynamics says some of the energy is used to facilitate this process. Hence the lack of "runaway global warming" that the Gore types preached about to pass their economy-destroying carbon credit laws.

Show me a climate change model that takes water vapor - the most effect greenhouse gas we know of - into account. I'll wait, but I won't be holding my breath.


Is she for real?
By bug77 on 10/23/2013 10:19:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm committed to climate change ...


Wtf?




Bad Example
By mike66 on 10/23/2013 11:02:19 AM , Rating: 2
Australia has worse firestorms now because we displaced the traditional owners (called aboriginals) who had been burning the land so often for thousands of years that they changed the nature of the flora and fauna forever (no more mega-pods), it's just a build up of combustible material.
Cut down (or burn) all the old growth forests as I hate the bush anyway, put nice white concrete over whats left, it will reflect back the sun-rays. Most of the worlds oxygen production and C.O.2 consumption is done by Phytoplankton in the ocean, not by old growth forests which are generally neutral which is too say they generate as much C.O.2 as oxygen. Stop exploiting and polluting the ocean and the problem is mostly solved.
This is not a joke, I really do not like the bush (full of bugs and snakes).




I agree with one of her comments...
By vortmax2 on 10/23/2013 12:15:26 PM , Rating: 2
"I just feel that it is so completely unfair and immoral what we are doing to future generations..."

...but not in regards to global warming...




A Spark...
By msheredy on 10/23/2013 12:16:56 PM , Rating: 2
...causes a fire




Orly?
By Director12 on 10/23/2013 5:39:30 PM , Rating: 2
As an Aussie I can assure you that the current bushfire problems we are having are due to a superabundance of undergrowth in the bush, whether or not the greenies are responsible for that is a matter of debate at the moment. The other factor is idiots that light fires. They 'mostly' tend to occur during school holidays. And people throwing their ciggy buts out the car window doesn't help either. We have ALWAYS suffered bushfires down here for as long as I can remember and I'm 50 *sigh*. That someone is claiming that it's due to a half-a-degree change in temperature over the last 100 years or whatever shows a complete lack of common sense and therefore can probably be attributed to someone who is university educated. Either that or the U.N. is worried about their cut of the carbon dioxide tax/derivative scams? For the past three years we have had very damp conditions with flooding in QLD so the warm dry is a nice change.




"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain














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