Science is clear on Climate Change.

For political discussions
Post Reply
User avatar
Marty
Posts: 4333
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: Delta
Contact:

Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Marty »

In the debate the other night on MSNBC, the Question was asked to Governor Perry - was can you name one scientist that does not believe in manmade Global Warming?

Well yes, I can answer that - Professor Jyrki Kauppinen, summed up his conclusions regarding the potential for man-made global warming: “I think it is such a blatant falsification.” Only scam artists, like Gore and Obama, acting in concert with government, to include Jerry Brown as in AB 32 for instance, still believe the world is flat. These folks are in the whacko movement to either make money or to control your life. Maybe Democrats should eat a corndog.
:lol:


Study Discredits Global Warming, AB 32
SEPT. 7, 2011
By CHRISS STREET
Nature Journal of Science, ranked as the world’s most-cited scientific periodical, just published the definitive study on Global Warming. It proves the dominant controller of temperatures in the earth’s atmosphere is galactic cosmic rays and the sun, rather than man. These “settled science” results should serve as a basis for Californians to overturn the state’s radical and now wrong environmental legislation, AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.

As one of the report’s researchers, Professor Jyrki Kauppinen, summed up his conclusions regarding the potential for man-made global warming: “I think it is such a blatant falsification.”

The research was conducted by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, which invented the World Wide Web, built the multi-billion-dollar Large Hadron Collider, and now has constructed a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreates the earth’s atmosphere. The climate study involved scientists representing 17 of Europe’s and America’s premiere research institutes.

The results demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that can grow and seed clouds in the earth’s atmosphere; the temperatures then fall as the density of the clouds increases. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach the earth’s atmosphere, the sun determines the temperature on earth.

Nature Journal has been the holy grail of scientific research publication since it was established in England in 1869. Its original editors gave the title to their new scientific journal in celebration of a line by British poet William Wordsworth: “To the solid ground of nature trusts the Mind that builds for aye.”

Because research scientists are the primary audience of this most prestigious of journals, the magazine strives to retain its stamp of approval as the pinnacle of scientific credibility for original research. Nature first introduced its readers to X-rays, the DNA double helix, the wave nature of particles, pulsars and, more recently, the mapping of the human genome.

Climategate

But Nature’s reputation suffered a huge black eye on November 21, 2009. A hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit and released 1,079 emails and 72 documents exposing willful fraud in several scientific papers published in Nature that supported Al Gore’s theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. CRU houses the world’s most extensive data base on atmospheric temperatures. The emails exposed blatant exaggerations of the warming data, possible illegal destruction of evidence and a conspiracy to manipulate or suppress data not supporting of the man-made global-warming theory. One email described tricks used supporting anthropogenics in a major Nature article:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
As the Wall Street Journal and other conservative media hyper-ventilated over the hacker leaks, they referred to as the “Climategate Scandal.”

Nature quickly retaliated in defense of anthropogenic global warming with a scathing editorial, “Climatologists Under Pressure,” stating:

“Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny.”

The editorial skewered academic doubters of man-made global warming as the “climate-change-denialist fringe.” And in a shocking Freudian slip, the Nature editorial roared its political partisanship:

“This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country’s much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause.”

Nature Backtracks

For Nature now to publish research that eviscerates the anthropogenics theory heralds a tectonic rejection by academia of support for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The U.N. protocol requires every nation on earth to reduce its atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gas to 94.8 percent of 1990 levels to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The U.S. Senate legislation that Nature sought to stridently lobby for is named “America’s Climate Security Act of 2007”; it’s commonly known as the Cap-and-Trade Bill.

The Heritage Foundation estimated that the costs of complying with Cap-and-Trade would include: a 29 percent increase in the price of gasoline, the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs and reductions of $1.7 to $4.8 trillion of the U.S. GDP by 2030.

Furthermore, Cap-and-Trade would set up a gargantuan intergovernmental bureaucracy that would likely ban natural gas fracking, the steam injection of tar sands and surface coal mining for exploration and the development of America’s immense energy reserves.

After 20 years of academic supremacy and hundreds of billions of dollars of costs, the anthropogenic global warming theory seems headed for the dustbin of history. Perhaps the admirable action of the Nature Journal of Science to place scientific integrity above partisan politics will be a valuable lesson for the scientific community in the future.

But don’t expect California liberals to abandon their collectivist integrity for mere scientific conclusions.


http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/09/07/22086/
Image
Ringer
Posts: 995
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Ringer »

But surely Al Gore was not wrong when he was saying the earth's oceans would rise and could cover the California coast within as little as five years? I just read that the ocean level has declined since he made those alarmist statments. People are basically stupid and will believe anything they are told.
Greg_Cornish
Posts: 5422
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:37 pm
Location: Clear Lake

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Greg_Cornish »

Ringer wrote: People are basically stupid and will believe anything they are told.
Case in point; this post
"The trouble with quotes on the Internet, is that you can never know if they are genuine." - Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Marty
Posts: 4333
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: Delta
Contact:

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Marty »

Image
Image
Skeeterman
Posts: 1988
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:21 am
Location: Skeeterville CA.

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Skeeterman »

I wonder if odumma is in their?
Ringer
Posts: 995
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Ringer »

OK Greg the facts have no bearing on this issue. Keep lapping up the Koolaid. Did the oceans recede in the last year or not? Global warming is a religion to the lefty looneys. :roll:
Grumpy
Posts: 546
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:35 am
Location: Third Rock also known as CA

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Grumpy »

Facts can be "inconvenient truths".
swank
Posts: 383
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:36 am
Location: west L.A.

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by swank »

only 97% of scientists believe man has a direct influence on global warming-if you believe in facts, numbers,and stupid stuff like that
Grumpy
Posts: 546
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:35 am
Location: Third Rock also known as CA

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Grumpy »

swank wrote:only 97% of scientists believe man has a direct influence on global warming-if you believe in facts, numbers,and stupid stuff like that
I think you miss the point of the global warming argument. Most people (including myself) believe humans have some impact on climate change, the question is and always has been, how much. I believe very little but none of this is proven, its all speculation, opinion and theory with a lot of it being politically driven. 97% of scientists is a nice fat number, did you just pull that out of your butt or care to back up that statement with some cold hard "facts".
Greg_Cornish
Posts: 5422
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:37 pm
Location: Clear Lake

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Greg_Cornish »

So is the quest for clean, inexpensive energy a bad thing?
"The trouble with quotes on the Internet, is that you can never know if they are genuine." - Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Marty
Posts: 4333
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: Delta
Contact:

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Marty »

Greg_Cornish wrote:So is the quest for clean, inexpensive energy a bad thing?
Looking for clean energy is not a bad thing but you used a misnomer of inexpensive. Without Government subsidizing with tax payers funds wind and solar is not cost effective. Even if it was it could not every take the place of fossil fuel – I heard on the Radio (KGO – your station) it will never be more than 20% of our Nation use.

As for bio-fuels, it cost more to make and is worst on the environment then fossil fuels. The only reason to use bio-fuels to pay off congress in campaign funds.

The only real reason to push so hard on wind and solar is to control Capitalism and our Economy. That is what the environmentalists are all about and they use guys like you to push their agenda!

If you want clean inexpensive energy use natural gas. We have more natural gas than any other country and we can become in depend and keep the $500 billion a year we send Mideast.

But no you will stay on the liberal Kool-Aid and not open your mind to the truth.
Image
Grumpy
Posts: 546
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:35 am
Location: Third Rock also known as CA

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Grumpy »

Marty is right, no such thing as inexpensive green energy and won't be for a long time. And now thanks to Obama's non existent or failed energy policies, we no longer have affordable fossil fuel energy.

Oh yeah, all those green energy jobs promised is working out well (see below article}. After their bankruptcy and your tax money is flushed down the rat hole I will give you three guess's where this "bankrupt" company will land. Hint ..... China.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... -bankrupt/
Ringer
Posts: 995
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Ringer »

Greg-it is all good but if you think wasting $520 BILLION on Solyndra and coming within a split hair of forcing everyone in America to pay an extra $3500 a year for utilities are sound decisions you are not dealing with a full deck. As for 97% that is BS. There were over 650 global climate scientists against the throry last year. You can bet the warming clan is now in the minority in the scientific community. We have the cleanest water than the rest of the world and more animals and trees than we had 100 years ago. Our air is also cleaner. We have done a lot to clean up our environment so go tax the crap out of China and India. They could care less as long as production costs are low.
Greg_Cornish
Posts: 5422
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:37 pm
Location: Clear Lake

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Greg_Cornish »

Ringer wrote:Greg-it is all good but if you think wasting $520 BILLION on Solyndra and coming within a split hair of forcing everyone in America to pay an extra $3500 a year for utilities are sound decisions you are not dealing with a full deck. As for 97% that is BS. There were over 650 global climate scientists against the throry last year. You can bet the warming clan is now in the minority in the scientific community. We have the cleanest water than the rest of the world and more animals and trees than we had 100 years ago. Our air is also cleaner. We have done a lot to clean up our environment so go tax the crap out of China and India. They could care less as long as production costs are low.
You pu a B where there should have been an M on iliion. That Solyndra stuff typical big business bologna. I doesn't just happen in the Solar business. It has little to do with the long term goal of finding clean inexpensive energy. It's a drop in the bucket to the benefits big oil steals every year. We've spent $4 trillion on them protecting our oil interests in the Middle East since 911

If you tell anyone in the corn belt that Alcohol fuels is not the way to solving the energy crisis because it costs us more in the end by raising food prices and takes as much energy to produce it as it produces, they will tell you one of two things.

1. All solutions are like this in the beginning stages. In no time at all well be making ethanol dirt cheap. It was like that with oil too.

2. That's a lie, their are making ethanol without much energy right now.

There's a conservative named Bill Wattenburg bashing Obama every weekend for not turning our vehicles to CNG which they are using in vehicles in Oklahoma and paying $00.40 a gallon for. While I agree we need to begin the conversion process, he never bashed Bush for not doing it and won't bash the next Republican.

So I'll go with the number 1 answer the conservatives in the Midwest use.

1. All solutions are like this in the beginning stages. In no time at all well be making ethanol dirt cheap. It was like that with oil too.

As far as the statement about having more animals, what country are you talking about? Not America, unless you are counting chicken, pigs, goats, sheep and cattle in general. There certainly is NOT more wildlife. Saying that would be a very ignorant statement and I don't think you are that ignorant.
"The trouble with quotes on the Internet, is that you can never know if they are genuine." - Abraham Lincoln
Ringer
Posts: 995
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Ringer »

Yes, I mean wild animals. At the end of the 19th century we had no buffalo, no elk, no turkeys and a few deer left in the west. Thanks to hunter/conservationists we now have 40000 elk and plenty of turkey and deer in my state. We even have 2 herds of buffalo. Our forefathers had tons of wild game until they decided to wipe out everything they could sell or eat. They also clear cut the forests. Americans listen to the hippy/huggers too much. We should not feel guilty about energy usage or anything else. We have done well for our environment but you won't hear that from the socialists.
Greg_Cornish
Posts: 5422
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:37 pm
Location: Clear Lake

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Greg_Cornish »

Ringer wrote: but you won't hear that from the socialists.
You don't mean Socialists, you mean intelligent people. Two herds of tame buffalo. Whoopee!

Every buffalo alive today has DNA that can be traced back to the Bronx Zoo. They lost their instinct to migrate over a century ago.Buffalo are livestock. You know what? You are too dense to explain the truth to.

Without any experience or knowledge obviously you have soaked up someone's BS who wants you to believe this so they can continue the rape and plunder.
"The trouble with quotes on the Internet, is that you can never know if they are genuine." - Abraham Lincoln
Ringer
Posts: 995
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Ringer »

Actually the herds here are transplants from the Yellowstone wild herds and one of them is a wide open free range hunt that very few people are successful at. If it wasn't for us plunderers you would see the only elk and wild turkey in the zoo and we have healthy populations of both. You should stay off the HSUS and Wildlife Federation sites.
Greg_Cornish
Posts: 5422
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:37 pm
Location: Clear Lake

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Greg_Cornish »

Ringer wrote:Actually the herds here are transplants from the Yellowstone wild herds and one of them is a wide open free range hunt that very few people are successful at. If it wasn't for us plunderers you would see the only elk and wild turkey in the zoo and we have healthy populations of both. You should stay off the HSUS and Wildlife Federation sites.
I'm glad you're having fun in your little micro world with your Buffalo. However, the world is bigger than Arizona. All the buffalo in Yellowstone can be traced back to 36 buffalo in the Bronx zoo too.

I'm not talking about hunting, son, I'm concerned with habitat. I hunt, my family hunts. We are all members of ducks unlimited and pheasants forever. My brothers are all members of the NRA and whitetail groups. Hunters increase populations.

Greed and practices by businesses that destroy habitat pushes animals to extinction.
"The trouble with quotes on the Internet, is that you can never know if they are genuine." - Abraham Lincoln
Ringer
Posts: 995
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Ringer »

Greg-you hunt so you know that businesses did not destroy the herds. It was human expansion into habitat and greedy market hunters. Our grandfathers threw trash out the window of the car, drained their oil into the dirt and killed just about anything that moved. We are evolving and improving our environment and I don't think we can blame evil business for much anymore. They are regulated to death which is why we lost our manufacturing. America is not the evildoer in the environment any longer. The industrial revolution is over.
Ringer
Posts: 995
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Ringer »

Greg-which orifice did you pull the Bronx Zoo fact from?


The Yellowstone herd is both genetically and behaviorally unique, being the only herd with continuously wild ancestry from the days when 50 million buffalo migrated freely across the Great Plains. At the end of the 19th century, after tens of millions had been slaughtered, only 23 wild buffalo survived. Taking refuge in Yellowstone's remote Pelican Valley, this remnant herd ensured the survival of the species in the wild. Today there are a little more than 3,000 buffalo living in and around Yellowstone
Greg_Cornish
Posts: 5422
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:37 pm
Location: Clear Lake

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Greg_Cornish »

Ringer wrote:Greg-which orifice did you pull the Bronx Zoo fact from?


The Yellowstone herd is both genetically and behaviorally unique, being the only herd with continuously wild ancestry from the days when 50 million buffalo migrated freely across the Great Plains. At the end of the 19th century, after tens of millions had been slaughtered, only 23 wild buffalo survived. Taking refuge in Yellowstone's remote Pelican Valley, this remnant herd ensured the survival of the species in the wild. Today there are a little more than 3,000 buffalo living in and around Yellowstone
I suppose it's possible that Yellowstone had a seed herd but the actual mother herd, the majority came from or bred with the mother herd from the Zbronx zoo. My good friend Neil Waldman did the research on it and wrote the book. You can buy it at Amazon. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/14/nyreg ... bronx.html
"The trouble with quotes on the Internet, is that you can never know if they are genuine." - Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Marty
Posts: 4333
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: Delta
Contact:

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Marty »

Greg_Cornish wrote:I suppose it's possible that Yellowstone had a seed herd but the actual mother herd, the majority came from or bred with the mother herd from the Zbronx zoo. My good friend Neil Waldman did the research on it and wrote the book. You can buy it at Amazon. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/14/nyreg ... bronx.html
Dang, Greg you sure know a lot of people – maybe your more of a Social Elite than you know? There was only one review of the book (see below).
They Came from the Bronx

One review of the book by amandaj1 (this was the only review)

In this book a young Native American boy is listening to his grandmother talk of the days when she was young in the Wichita Mountains in Oklahoma. She explains how the buffalo roamed the hills in great numbers. She gives a short lesson in Native American history during this book. She also explains how the white people came to this country and killed almost all of the buffalo and forced the Indians onto reservations. While she is talking, several buffalo are in route back to Oklahoma from the Bronx. They are coming by train and end up arriving in the mountains just as she is finishing her story in horsedrawn carriages.

I had never heard of this book before and was pleasantly surprised when I began reading it and realized that it takes place only a few miles from my home. It was a very interesting read.

I love field trips so going to the Wichita Mountain Refuge to see the buffalo would be great. Also visiting the museum to learn more about the Native Americans that inhabited the state and the buffalo that are currently in the refuge. Asking a Native American to come to the classroom and share information about their heritage, show some of the tribal dances, and introduce some of the authentic foods would be another way to incorporate this book into the classroom after reading.
The best part of my search on the internet was the tags it pulled up such as the following:
Tags: picturebook, love, Poetry, Multicultural, Modern Fantasy, PBS, fairy tale, Bison – fiction, children's books, Comanche Indians – Fiction, diversity, historical fiction, Indians of North America - fiction, Oklahoma fiction, and Wildlife reintroduction - fiction.
The way I read that, is the book was “FICTION”.
Image
Greg_Cornish
Posts: 5422
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:37 pm
Location: Clear Lake

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Greg_Cornish »

Silly boy marty, of course it's fiction. It's a story based on truth that the buffalo were near extinction and the actual re-introduction came from seed herds and the largrst and most important herd in the U.S. Came from the Bronx zoo and they were used as the most active group to reintroduce and begin herds in other areas. They also were need to keep other bison from inbreeding to much. Something you might be more familiar with :D
"The trouble with quotes on the Internet, is that you can never know if they are genuine." - Abraham Lincoln
Grumpy
Posts: 546
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:35 am
Location: Third Rock also known as CA

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Grumpy »

Some of todays Bison are descendents of animals kept at the New York zoo, not all. Different preservationist from around the country each kept small numbers of the last captured Bison. The current Bison herds come from different gene pools.

Plains bison were saved from extinction by the independent actions of private citizens (Dary 1989, Coder 1975). Between 1873 and 1889, several individuals in locations ranging from Manitoba to Texas captured the last of the wild plains bison, except for the few remaining in Yellowstone NP. William Hornaday, director of the New York Zoological Park, and other wildlife advocates concerned about the loss of this symbol of the American West formed the American Bison Society (ABS) in 1905. The ABS successfully lobbied for the creation of several public reserves in the United States, which the ABS then populated with bison from private herds and the Bronx Zoo (Coder 1975, Isenberg 2000).

Paragraph taken from linked website, about all you need to know about buffalo.

http://www.nature.nps.gov/biology/docum ... Report.pdf
Andy Lippert
Posts: 789
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 9:25 pm
Location: Granite Bay

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Andy Lippert »

LMFAO!!! Haven't viewed, much less posted on this forum in months, but it's nice to know that Greg is still making himself look like a complete dumba$$. Some things never change.
Greg_Cornish
Posts: 5422
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:37 pm
Location: Clear Lake

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Greg_Cornish »

Ice caps continue declining. More sand appears for Conservatives to bury their head in.

http://lakeconews.com/content/view/21810/919/
"The trouble with quotes on the Internet, is that you can never know if they are genuine." - Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Marty
Posts: 4333
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: Delta
Contact:

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Marty »

Even when the truth faces the die-hard Liberals that they have been living a lie, they still don’t give up!
Walter Russell Mead,
The global warming movement as we have known it is dead. Its health had been in steady decline during the last year as the once robust hopes for a strong and legally binding treaty to be agreed upon at the Copenhagen Summit faded away. By the time that summit opened, campaigners were reduced to hoping for a ‘politically binding’ agreement to be agreed that would set the stage for the rapid adoption of the legally binding treaty. After the failure of the summit to agree to even that much, the movement went into a rapid decline.

The movement died from two causes: bad science and bad politics.

After years in which global warming activists had lectured everyone about the overwhelming nature of the scientific evidence, it turned out that the most prestigious agencies in the global warming movement were breaking laws, hiding data, and making inflated, bogus claims resting on, in some cases, no scientific basis at all. This latest story in the London Times is yet another shocker; the IPCC’s claims that the rainforests were going to disappear as a result of global warming are as bogus and fraudulent as its claims that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. It seems as if a scare story could grab a headline, the IPCC simply didn’t care about whether it was reality-based.

With this in mind, ‘climategate’ — the scandal over hacked emails by prominent climate scientists — looks sinister rather than just unsavory. The British government has concluded that University of East Anglia, home of the research institute that provides the global warming with much of its key data, had violated Britain’s Freedom of Information Act when scientists refused to hand over data so that critics could check their calculations and methods. Breaking the law to hide key pieces of data isn’t just ‘science as usual,’ as the global warming movement’s embattled defenders gamely tried to argue. A cover-up like that suggests that you indeed have something to conceal.

The urge to make the data better than it was didn’t just come out of nowhere. The global warmists were trapped into the necessity of hyping the threat by their realization that the actual evidence they had — which, let me emphasize, all hype aside, is serious, troubling and establishes in my mind the need for intensive additional research and investigation, as well as some prudential steps that would reduce CO2 emissions by enhancing fuel use efficiency and promoting alternative energy sources — was not sufficient to get the world’s governments to do what they thought needed to be done. Hyping the threat increasingly doesn’t look like an accident: it looks like it was a conscious political strategy.

Now it has failed. Not everything that has come out of the IPCC and the East Anglia Climate Unit is false, but enough of their product is sufficiently tainted that these institutions can best serve the cause of fighting climate change by stepping out of the picture. New leadership might help, but everything these two agencies have done will now have to be re-checked by independent and objective sources.

The global warming campaigners got into this mess because they had a deeply flawed political strategy. They were never able to develop a pragmatic approach that could reach its goals in the context of the existing international system. The global warming movement proposed a complex set of international agreements involving vast transfers of funds, intrusive regulations in national economies, and substantial changes to the domestic political economies of most countries on the planet. As it happened, the movement never got to the first step — it never got the world’s countries to agree to the necessary set of treaties, transfers and policies that would constitute, at least on paper, a program for achieving its key goals.

Even if that first step had been reached, the second and third would almost surely not have been. The United States Congress is unlikely to pass the kind of legislation these agreements would require before the midterm elections, much less ratify a treaty. (It takes 67 senate votes to ratify a treaty and only 60 to overcome a filibuster.) After the midterms, with the Democrats expected to lose seats in both houses, the chance of passage would be even more remote — especially as polls show that global warming ranks at or near the bottom of most voters’ priorities. American public opinion supports ‘doing something’ about global warming, but not very much; support for specific measures and sacrifices will erode rapidly as commentators from Fox News and other conservative outlets endlessly hammer away. Without a commitment from the United States to pay its share of the $100 billion plus per year that poor countries wanted as their price for compliance, and without US participation in other aspects of the proposed global approach, the intricate global deals fall apart.

Since the United States was never very likely to accept these agreements and ratify these treaties, and is even less prepared to do so in a recession with the Democrats in retreat, even “success” in Copenhagen would not have brought the global warming movement the kind of victory it sought — although it would have created a very sticky and painful political problem for the United States.

But even if somehow, miraculously, the United States and all the other countries involved not only accepted the agreements but ratified them and wrote domestic legislation to incorporate them into law, it is extremely unlikely that all this activity would achieve the desired result. Countries would cheat, either because they chose to do so or because their domestic systems are so weak, so corrupt or so boththat they simply wouldn’t be able to comply. Governments in countries like China and India aren’t going to stop pushing for all the economic growth they can get by any means that will work — and even if central governments decided to move on global warming, state and local authorities have agendas of their own. The examples of blatant cheating would inevitably affect compliance in other countries; it would also very likely erode what would in any case be an extremely fragile consensus in rich countries to keep forking over hundreds of billions of dollars to poor countries — many of whom would not be in anything like full compliance with their commitments.

For better or worse, the global political system isn’t capable of producing the kind of result the global warming activists want. It’s like asking a jellyfish to climb a flight of stairs; you can poke and prod all you want, you can cajole and you can threaten. But you are asking for something that you just can’t get — and at the end of the day, you won’t get it.

The grieving friends and relatives aren’t ready to pull the plug; in a typical, whistling-past-the-graveyard comment, the BBC first acknowledges that even if the current promises are kept, temperatures will rise above the target level of two degrees Celsius — but let’s not despair! The BBC quotes one of its own reporters: “BBC environment reporter Matt McGrath says the accord lacks teeth and does not include any clear targets on cutting emissions. But if most countries at least signal what they intend to do to cut their emissions, it will mark the first time that the UN has a comprehensive written collection of promised actions, he says.”

Gosh! A comprehensive written collection of promised actions! And it’s a first!! Any day now that jellyfish is going to start climbing stairs. Sure, it will be slow at first — but the momentum will build!

The death of global warming (the movement, not the phenomenon) has some important political and cultural consequences in the United States that I’ll be blogging on down the road. Basically, Sarah Palin 1, Al Gore zip. The global warming meltdown confirms all the populist suspicions out there about an arrogantly clueless establishment invoking faked ‘science’ to impose cockamamie social mandates on the long-suffering American people, backed by a mainstream media that is totally in the tank. Don’t think this won’t have consequences; we’ll be exploring them together as the days go by.


http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/ ... l-warming/
Image
User avatar
Marty
Posts: 4333
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: Delta
Contact:

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Marty »

No matter how many articles I show Greg, he will refuse to believe the truth that he was taken as a fool!

UN climate body admits 'mistake' on Himalayan glaciers!
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

The vice-chairman of the UN's climate science panel has admitted it made a mistake in asserting that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) included the date in its 2007 assessment of climate impacts.

A number of scientists have recently disputed the 2035 figure, and Jean-Pascal van Ypersele told BBC News that it was an error and would be reviewed.
But he said it did not change the broad picture of man-made climate change. The issue, which BBC News first reported on 05 December, has reverberated around climate websites in recent days.

Some commentators maintain that taken together with the contents of e-mails stolen last year from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, it undermines the credibility of climate science.

Dr van Ypersele said this was not the case.
"I don't see how one mistake in a 3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report," he said.
"Some people will attempt to use it to damage the credibility of the IPCC; but if we can uncover it, and explain it and change it, it should strengthen the IPCC's credibility, showing that we are ready to learn from our mistakes."

Grey area
The claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 appears to have originated in a 1999 interview with Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, published in New Scientist magazine.
The figure then surfaced in a 2005 report by environmental group WWF - a report that is cited in the IPCC's 2007 assessment, known as AR4.
An alternative genesis lies in the misreading of a 1996 study that gave the date as 2350.
AR 4 asserted: "Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world... the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high."
Dr van Ypersele said the episode meant that the panel's reviewing procedures would have to be tightened.

Slow reaction?
The row erupted in India late last year in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate summit, with opposing factions in the government giving radically different narratives of what was happening to Himalayan ice.

In December, it emerged that four leading glaciologists had prepared a letter for publication in the journal Science arguing that a complete melt by 2035 was physically impossible.
"You just can't accomplish it," Jeffrey Kargel from the University of Arizona told BBC News at the time.

"If you think about the thicknesses of the ice - 200-300m thicknesses, in some cases up to 400m thick - and if you're losing ice at the rate of a metre a year, or let's say double it to two metres a year, you're not going to get rid of 200m of ice in a quarter of a century."

The row continues in India, with Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh calling this week for the IPCC to explain "how it reached the 2035 figure, which created such a scare".
Meanwhile, in an interview with the news agency AFP, Georg Kaser from the University of Innsbruck in Austria - who led a different portion of the AR4 process - said he had warned that the 2035 figure was wrong in 2006, before AR4's publication.

"It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing," he told AFP in an interview.
He said that people working on the Asia chapter "did not react".
He suggested that some of the IPCC's working practices should be revised by the time work begins on its next landmark report, due in 2013.
But its overall conclusion that global warming is "unequivocal" remains beyond reproach, he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8468358.stm
Image
Grumpy
Posts: 546
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:35 am
Location: Third Rock also known as CA

Re: Science is clear on Climate Change.

Post by Grumpy »

This is funny, so much for technology advancement. Govt. motors breaking thru technological barriers creating an elect car which can travel 40 miles on a single charge, wait, they did that over a hundred years ago.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/14/114-y ... hevy-volt/
Post Reply