Gulf Of Thailand Won't Rise With Global Warming, Expert Claims

[RickBradford]

The leaked data at CRU wasn't just e-mails, but computer programs as well.

A plotting program (data4alps.pro) prints this reminder to the user prior to rendering the chart:

‘“IMPORTANT NOTE: The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set this ‘decline’ has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring density variations, but have been modified to look more like the observed temperatures.”

In the code, there is this snippet (note, that the content after the semi-colon is a comment made by the programmer to remind him of what this line of code does.)

‘yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

‘valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

The programmer, by his own admission, has included a "fudge factor" to deliberately distort the data to fit his pre-arranged agenda.

There's plenty more of this stuff, proving that an important gang of international scientists, in cahoots with parts of the political establishment, has been inventing, bending, distorting, manipulating, hiding, blocking, and destroying scientific data for the sake of advancing a narrow, extremist political viewpoint.

Edited December 4, 2009 by RickBradford

[JimShortz]

JR, you really have got to stop feeding the trolls (or halfwits - whatever). I, along with about every educated person I know, am fully aware that global warming is a very real phenomenon. Really - you've just got to stop biting...

If they are not trolls, and really believe what they are saying then just humour them... don't be mean to dim folks - it's not nice...

Can anyone really imagine that digging up all of the fossil carbon (coal and oil, if it needs explaining to the trolls) trapped beneath the earth's surface over millions of years and then burning it all in a century or two is not going to have some sort of dramatic impact? Isn't that obvious?

For me the deciding factor in realising that humans must be causing this measurable warming (undeniable, surely...) is that according to the natural cycles of warming and cooling that the earth follows (as taught to me by head of the UK Glacial Studies group) we should be heading down the cooling slope towards the next ice age. OOPS! Not really gettting cooler is it? Polar bears are going to have no ice for their drinks soon...

Anyway. I won't post on this again (my personal preference is to not feed trolls). I just thought I'd offer JR some support!

[teatree]

Agree, parts of Thailand will be seriously affected by rising sea levels, particularly that megapolis known as Bangkok.

That's a mis-direction if not an outright lie. Bangkok is sinking (rapidly actually) due to being built on a swamp. I have mentioned this previousley in this thread.

Facts, truth is all we sceptics ask for.

If it is sinking why magnify the problem by ignoring the impact of global warming/climate change? Sinking plus rising sea levels = disaster.

The BOLs/skeptics are not interested in "truth." The last thing you want is for truth to surface.

All you do is manipulate facts, distort views, participate in character/science assassination attempts, support the theft of private emails.......you are most definitely on the wrong side of this. You will stop at nothing to stop positive change.

Decentralize energy is the key to a better future. It puts power and control in the hands of the people and removes it from BIG OIL. You have lost the actual scientific debate and now are like children screaming "unfair........you cheated."

You are, in fact, among those that cheated. And when BIG OIL and the BOLs are buried and dead, I for one will stand over your grave, smile, plant flowers, spit, and then walk away to a better future.

Pathetic that many warmers seem to feel the need to act as the victims over climategate. The UN professors were caught red handed and the fact that emails were leaked is entirely acceptable in cases such as this where criminal activity is exposed.

JR, how are carbon tax and carbon rationing going to bring about a decentralised energy system? Who, how, what, when, where?

[teatree]

JR, you really have got to stop feeding the trolls (or halfwits - whatever). I, along with about every educated person I know, am fully aware that global warming is a very real phenomenon. Really - you've just got to stop biting...

If they are not trolls, and really believe what they are saying then just humour them... don't be mean to dim folks - it's not nice...

Can anyone really imagine that digging up all of the fossil carbon (coal and oil, if it needs explaining to the trolls) trapped beneath the earth's surface over millions of years and then burning it all in a century or two is not going to have some sort of dramatic impact? Isn't that obvious?

For me the deciding factor in realising that humans must be causing this measurable warming (undeniable, surely...) is that according to the natural cycles of warming and cooling that the earth follows (as taught to me by head of the UK Glacial Studies group) we should be heading down the cooling slope towards the next ice age. OOPS! Not really gettting cooler is it? Polar bears are going to have no ice for their drinks soon...

Anyway. I won't post on this again (my personal preference is to not feed trolls). I just thought I'd offer JR some support!

Yes, go back to watching CNN and BBC world for all your views and opinions. Bye bye.

[pwm]

In the code, there is this snippet (note, that the content after the semi-colon is a comment made by the programmer to remind him of what this line of code does.)

‘yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

‘valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

The programmer, by his own admission, has included a "fudge factor" to deliberately distort the data to fit his pre-arranged agenda.

There's plenty more of this stuff, proving that an important gang of international scientists, in cahoots with parts of the political establishment, has been inventing, bending, distorting, manipulating, hiding, blocking, and destroying scientific data for the sake of advancing a narrow, extremist political viewpoint.

And anybody who bothered to do even a 5 second Google for the reference above would also discover that the "fudge factor" is not used by the code (the part which actually might apply the variable is not active). Who's distorting the truth to advance a viewpoint here? It's also interesting to note that despite the wrongs of the individuals at the CRU, their results are aligned studies produced by other, completely unaffiliated bodies.

The underlying point here is that science is all about doubt and the refinement of understanding. Those requesting "facts" should return to their bibles - science will never provide you with the guarantees you require.

Whilst I wouldn't normally be bothered to post, there's a hope deep within me that nobody actually takes anything written on a random-access forum like this too seriously, and certainly not without doing further independent investigation. Like with the ongoing promotion of the "Global Warming Swindle" video on TV - ten minutes reading on Wikipedia and other sites would uncover the fact that this notoriously biased production has been discredited to the satisfaction of most thinking people.

It's a sad truth that the "democratisation" of the media brought on partly by the rise of the internet really does encourage people to reduce their exposure to contrary points of view and cling to herds of like-minded individuals. I wish it were different and that people used the medium to engage in logical, rational debate and promote consensus, rather than promulgate more and more extremist views...

Enough from me,

Pat.

[certified]

These experts are impressive! Actually I read that within 20 -50 years if the warming curve continues the ground in and around Bangkok will be saturated with sea water with a high saline content which will make it impossibe to farm and maintain buildings. This was an article printed in the Bangkok Post a few years ago. This too might be speculation from another expert.

[PhilHarries]

JR, how are carbon tax and carbon rationing going to bring about a decentralised energy system? Who, how, what, when, where?

Don't worry about JR's decentralised energy system. He has this fuzzy dream that one day somebody is going to invent, in their garden shed, some unforeseen source of energy small enough to carry around whose raw materials are freely available and can be reproduced using no more complex equipment than a hammer, a hacksaw and a roll of duct tape. This inventor will then prove to be the world's greatest philanthropist and will give this invention away for absolutely no financial return all for the good of the world.

Alternatively a passing alien spaceship will drop in and it's crew will be quaintly amused by mankind's efforts at making advances in such fields as limitless energy and will leave a few of their magic crystals for us to copy. These goldfish bowl size devices will be easily made and utilise nothing more complex than sand to produce limitless energy from nothing more than starlight. Of course the recipients of the first free samples will also be unabashed philanthropists and will readily pass on the technology free to all the world's peoples.

Sweet dreams JR.

Given free rein BIG AL and his mates will have us all sat around on the dirt floor staring at the now useless DVD player we bought twenty years before wondering if we could burn it to keep warm in the current ice age.

[JR Texas]

JR, you really have got to stop feeding the trolls (or halfwits - whatever). I, along with about every educated person I know, am fully aware that global warming is a very real phenomenon. Really - you've just got to stop biting...

If they are not trolls, and really believe what they are saying then just humour them... don't be mean to dim folks - it's not nice...

Can anyone really imagine that digging up all of the fossil carbon (coal and oil, if it needs explaining to the trolls) trapped beneath the earth's surface over millions of years and then burning it all in a century or two is not going to have some sort of dramatic impact? Isn't that obvious?

For me the deciding factor in realising that humans must be causing this measurable warming (undeniable, surely...) is that according to the natural cycles of warming and cooling that the earth follows (as taught to me by head of the UK Glacial Studies group) we should be heading down the cooling slope towards the next ice age. OOPS! Not really gettting cooler is it? Polar bears are going to have no ice for their drinks soon...

Anyway. I won't post on this again (my personal preference is to not feed trolls). I just thought I'd offer JR some support!

You are right........I am not so much responding to their posts and revealing useful information that I want other people to think about..........for example, moving from centralized to decentralized control of energy. If this has been a "debate," they have lost already......I think that is clear to virtually everyone.

By the way, I too read that we should be in a cooling cycle which will materialize fully, I think, in about 30,000 to 50,000 years, when a full fledged Ice Age hits us--the result of the 100,000 year Milankovitch cycle which involves, among other things, the alternation of the shape of our orbit around the sun.

Or is it the moon? Might as well throw them another bone.........

The good news for them is that I may have to go to Afghanistan in the near future.......don't think I will be posting much from there.

[RickBradford]

I missed out an earlier comment that explains what that code is doing

;

; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!

;

yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$

2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’

;

yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

The idea that a programmer would create a detailed array like this without ever having the intention of using it is untenable, even though the variable is indeed commented out in this particular version.

The breathtaking arrogance and widespread wrongdoing of these people has been clearly demonstrated.

Edited December 4, 2009 by RickBradford

[Groongthep]

The ironic thing about JR quoting the anti-Exxon website is that its main premise is that Exxonmobil is somehow denying global warming and funding unreliable studies to disprove it. All one needs to do is spend a few seconds clicking over to the official Exxonmobil website and read what they have to say about climate change and their efforts to deal with it, and what they are saying is that they agree that the global climate is indeed warming, that it is a serious problem and that they are paying for significant independent research from reputable scientific organizations and universities to study the problem and make recommendations on how to best deal with it. Read it for yourself HERE.

I am no fan of big oil companies but sites like the one quoted by JR do more to hurt any rational discourse on the global warming issue than they do to help. Being so clearly bias and inflammatory lessen any legitimacy they might have otherwise had.

[JR Texas]

The ironic thing about JR quoting the anti-Exxon website is that its main premise is that Exxonmobil is somehow denying global warming and funding unreliable studies to disprove it. All one needs to do is spend a few seconds clicking over to the official Exxonmobil website and read what they have to say about climate change and their efforts to deal with it, and what they are saying is that they agree that the global climate is indeed warming, that it is a serious problem and that they are paying for significant independent research from reputable scientific organizations and universities to study the problem and make recommendations on how to best deal with it. Read it for yourself HERE.

I am no fan of big oil companies but sites like the one quoted by JR do more to hurt any rational discourse on the global warming issue than they do to help. Being so clearly bias and inflammatory lessen any legitimacy they might have otherwise had.

Of course they do that........I would too because it looks good to the public and it cost them next to nothing....only a fraction of their income is devoted to it.

And I am sure we all agree they are trying everything possible to move us away from dependency on a centralized fossil fuel energy network/system they control and profit from at the expense of present and future generations :D

Here is something interesting: source: http://en.cop15.dk/?gclid=CIGQv8nRt54CFZAvpAodLGqwog

Personally, I think BIG OIL should foot the bill........it is one of the massive indirect costs of continuing to worship at the alter of BIG OIL.........add to it military expenditures in places like the Middle East and the actual cost of clinging to Stone Age Fossil Fuel Technology is immense......and taxpayers are paying for it.

Experts are warning: Adapt or die

Adapting to rising seas and higher temperatures is expected to be a big topic at the UN climate-change talks in Copenhagen next week, along with the projected cost — hundreds of billions of dollars, much of it going to countries that cannot afford it.

AP/Michael von Bülow

04/12/2009 09:45

With the world losing the battle against global warming so far, experts are warning that humans need to follow nature's example: Adapt or die.

That means elevating buildings, making taller and stronger dams and seawalls, rerouting water systems, restricting certain developments, changing farming practices and ultimately moving people, plants and animals out of harm's way.

Adapting to rising seas and higher temperatures is expected to be a big topic at the UN climate-change talks in Copenhagen next week, along with the projected cost — hundreds of billions of dollars, much of it going to countries that cannot afford it.

That adaptation will be a major focus is remarkable in itself. Until the past couple of years, experts avoided talking about adjusting to global warming for fear of sounding fatalistic or causing countries to back off efforts to reduce emissions.

"It's something that's been neglected, hasn't been talked about and it's something the world will have to do," said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "Adaptation is going to be absolutely crucial for some societies."

Some biologists point to how nature has handled the changing climate. The rare Adonis blue butterfly of Britain looked as if it was going to disappear because it couldn't fly far and global warming was making its habitat unbearable. To biologists' surprise, it evolved longer thoraxes and wings, allowing it to fly farther to cooler locales.

"Society needs to be changing as much as wildlife is changing," said Texas A&M University biologist Camille Parmesan, an expert on how species change with global warming.

One difficulty is that climate change is happening rapidly.

"Adaptation will be particularly challenging because the rate of change is escalating and is moving outside the range to which society has adapted in the past" when more natural climate changes happened, US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco, a marine biologist, told Congress on Wednesday.

Cities, states and countries are scrambling to adapt or are at least talking about it and setting aside money for it. Some examples:

England is strengthening the Thames River flood control barrier at a cost of around half a billion dollars.

The Netherlands is making its crucial flood control system stronger.

California is redesigning the gates that move water around the agriculturally vital Sacramento River Delta so that they can work when the sea level rises dramatically there.

Boston elevated a sewage treatment plant to keep it from being flooded when sea level rises. New York City is looking at similar maneuvers for water plants.

Chicago has a program to promote rooftop vegetation and reflective roofs that absorb less heat. That could keep the temperature down and ease heat waves.

Engineers are installing "thermal siphons" along the oil pipeline in Alaska, which is built on permafrost that is thawing, to draw heat away from the ground.

Researchers are uprooting moisture-loving trees along British Columbia's coastal rainforests and dropping their seedlings in the dry ponderosa pine forests of Idaho, where they are more likely to survive.

Singapore plans to cut its flood-prone areas in half by 2011 by widening and deepening drains and canals and completing a 226-million-dollar dam at the mouth of the city's main river.

In Thailand, there are large-scale efforts to protect places from rising sea levels. Monks at one temple outside Bangkok had to raise the floor by more than three feet.

Desperately poor Bangladesh is spending more than 50 million dollars on adaptation. It is trying to fend off the sea with flood control and buildings on stilts.

President Barack Obama and Congress are talking about 1.2 billion dollars a year from the US for international climate aid, which includes adaptation. The UN climate chief, Yvo de Boer, said 10 to 12 billion dollars a year is needed from developed countries through 2012 to "kick-start" things. Then it will get even more expensive.

The World Bank estimates adaptation costs will total 75 to 100 billion dollars a year over the next 40 years. The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), a London think tank, says that number is too low.

It may even be 200 or 300 billion dollars a year, said Chris Hope, a business school professor at the University of Cambridge and part of the IIED study.

Nevertheless, Hope said failing to adapt would be even more expensive — perhaps six trillion dollars a year on average over the next 200 years. Adaptation could cut that by about two trillion dollars a year, he said.

As much as three-quarters of the spending will be needed in the developing world, experts say.

READ MORE

AP via Yahoo News: Global warming may require higher dams, stilts

Cop15.dk: Adaptation fund remains almost empty

[RickBradford]

Canada's resident global warming totalitarian David Suzuki has been trumpeting that:

Recently, 26 scientists from Germany, France, Switzerland, Austria, Canada, the U.S., and Australia released a report showing that the impacts of global warming are occurring faster and are more widespread than other reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had projected.

Unfortunately for Suzuki, one of the the lead authors of that report is none other than Michael ("Hide the Decline") Mann, one of Climategate’s central and most powerful figures, which sort of undermines its credibility.

Oops.

[RickBradford]

How to "prove" global warming (or any other unscientific theory)

Only one mistake: instead of writing "Modify theory to fit data", the author should have visited CRU or IPCC and then written "Modify data to fit theory", but, hey, this was hopeful 2006 rather than cynical 2009.

[RickBradford]

Very interesting, two-sided, polite and rational debate on climate change, conducted by the BBC, with scientists of both persuasions. (Audio: 12:41 minutes)

[mojaco]

Very interesting, two-sided, polite and rational debate on climate change, conducted by the BBC, with scientists of both persuasions. (Audio: 12:41 minutes)

This entire Chicken Little "The sky is falling" Enviro-Religious ferver that we are all going to die if we don't immediately commit to quickly returning to a mid-1800's lifestyle is sickening. It is nice to hear some thoughtful "non-enviro-religious" points and counter-points for a change. Thanks for the URL!

Edited December 4, 2009 by mojaco

[Jdietz]

one of the the lead authors of that report is none other than Michael ("Hide the Decline") Mann, one of Climategate’s central and most powerful figures, which sort of undermines its credibility.

Most likely the reason they are now calling it 'anthropogenic climate change' instead of the more obvious 'Mann-made climate change'

[brahmburgers]

Agree, parts of Thailand will be seriously affected by rising sea levels, particularly that megapolis known as Bangkok.

That's a mis-direction if not an outright lie. Bangkok is sinking (rapidly actually) due to being built on a swamp. I have mentioned this previousley in this thread. Facts, truth is all we sceptics ask for.

The fact that there may be compound causes of Bangkok's future flooding, does not negate any one stand-alone factor. If Bangkok is sinking, as you say, then higher sea water would only exacerbate that phenomena, would it not? So too would storm surges, high tides. So too would poor planning by engineers/politicians (such as building a grand levee around Bangkok), but that's another topic.

Someone mentioned John Stewart's witty monologue, as part of an argument against GW. So happens, Mr. Stewart (a comedian/satirist) says within the same dialog, "does it disprove global warming? No, of course not"

As for carbon-trading / carbon credit programs, let's get one thing clear. Many who believe GW is an important issue, such as myself, don't necessarily go along with the carbon trading schemes. The carbon trading issue is complicated, and may be revised or dropped altogether. It's a sideshow. Neither do we all walk in lock-step to every utterance by every scientist voicing support for the concept - as we wouldn't expect GW deniers to all think alike.

To me, the most convincing evidence that global warming is real, are the images and data showing the Arctic ice receding, Greenland forming lakes for the first time in recorded history, and most of all, glaciers worldwide receding at alarming rates.

If that's not evidence of global warming, I don't know what is.

[RickBradford]

f that's not evidence of global warming, I don't know what is.

An important distinction which many people have forgotten or deliberately ignore.

"Global warming" does not equal "man-made global warming."

[trogers]

The evolution in basic human behaviour is the best proof of global warming, and not cooling.

Here is the proof:

[RickBradford]

Nice one. Could you extrapolate that to 2009? Please don't fiddle with the data, though.

[trogers]

Nice one. Could you extrapolate that to 2009? Please don't fiddle with the data, though.

The hot topic now is 'String Theory'....

[RickBradford]

^^ Does that tie in with the "hockey stick" theory, which is flat for a long time, then suddenly rises almost vertically...

Then we have Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT):

“Why do we need to deconstruct global warming? Simply because it has been an issue that has been routinely treated with misinformation and sophistry abetted by constant repetition, institutional endorsements, and widespread ignorance even (perhaps especially) among the educated. Because of the increasingly dangerous and expensive approaches being promoted to deal with this alleged problem, it is, I think, important to understand what is being said as well as to understand how climate actually works. I will begin with a few items that illustrate how this issue has been manipulated, and how, to a great extent, global warming has been merely a device for implementing broader agendas."

More

The global warming scammers, from Globulus Warmus Maximus (Al Gore) himself downwards , are utterly busted.

The story of man-made global warming is over. In reality it never existed except in the minds and hearts of grant-seeking scientists and academics, ratings-obsessed television networks and their misinformed, room-temperature IQ viewers and opportunistic eco-activists.

[teatree]

Government funded scientists have been caught cooking the books before:

*FLASHBACK*

August 2007

Toronto blogger embarrasses NASA climate experts

An amateur meteorologist from Toronto has embarrassed NASA scientists by catching an error in recent climate-change data. The resulting flap has led to accusations and finger-pointing over whether NASA's error was genuine.

Thanks to blogger Stephen McIntyre's calculations, climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Science (GISS) in New York now concede that 1934 was the hottest year in U.S. history, and not 1998 as it previously reported.

McIntyre first emailed NASA on Aug. 4 saying he'd discovered an error in its climate change data from 1999-onwards. He noticed inexplicable jumps in temperature around that time and, as it turns out, NASA's temperature readings have all been too high since then, to a maximum of 0.15 C.

NASA has since adjusted its numbers. They now show that 1998 is the U.S.'s second-hottest year and that five of the 10 warmest years on record in the U.S. date from before 1939. The worldwide numbers remain unchanged, with 1998 and 2005 tied as the hottest year on record.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/08...17.html?ref=rss

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/16/1

Of course since the 'mistake' was spotted NASA have re-cooked the books and refute the adjusted figures.

Edited December 4, 2009 by teatree

[teatree]

Researcher: NASA hiding climate data

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/d...g-climate-data/

[JR Texas]

source: http://en.cop15.dk/blogs/view+blog?blogid=2715 also see: http://en.cop15.dk/?gclid=CIGQv8nRt54CFZAvpAodLGqwog

South East Asia and climate change

Climate change is a critical and pressing issue we are faced with today. In Southeast Asia we are increasingly exposed to the results of climate change, such as the latest typhoons and floods in the region, causing loss of lives and damage to property as well as displacing familes and increasing the spread of tropical diseases.

Simon Tay, Chairman, Singapore Institute of International Affairs (SIIA) and former chairman of Singapore National Energy Agency

26/11/2009 12:50

There is also the risk of rising sea level and increasing temperatures. A recently released report from the Asian Developing Bank (ADB) shows that South East Asia is likely to suffer more from climate change than elsewhere in the world. There will be considerable economic costs too, with a projected 7-8 per cent lost in GDP, unless climate change is addressed.

It is an issue, on which developed and developing countries should come together. Yet differences and suspicions remain.

The date for COP15 in Copenhagen is rapidly approaching and nations worldwide are going to great lengths to reach a consensus on a new climate agreement. However, after the Barcelona meetings earlier this month, it seems that the negotiations have not progressed so far that a new legal framework will be ready for Copenhagen. A realistic outcome will probably be a political framework which can form the basis for future negotiations on the post-Kyoto treaty.

South East Asian countries, including Singapore, need to think about their position on the international stage. We all see the need to bring together the US, India, China and south-east Asia, and mediators can help bring these nations together. Singapore and other countries in the region could very well play that role. South East Asia and Singapore should engage and have an active role.

If we do not, we risk having larger and more powerful countries coming to agreements alone and the decisions risk being made without our full attention and participation.

Singapore, along with the rest of the world is also looking at alternative sources of energy. It is clear that some countries are more able and capable to deploy energy saving mechanisms such as windmills and water/tidal turbines. Solar energy, though a good solution, is still very expensive and presently is not optimal for Singapore due to our small land size and cloud cover. But we can participate in helping develop the technology and know how and benefit.

Singapore drew up a sustainable blueprint earlier this year which stressed issues such as increasing energy efficiency. Singapore also has an excellent past record in many areas of environmental proection as a green city. But we, and all other nations, should also be committed to the global effort to address climate change.

Singapore has good engineering and technology and export environmental services like water treatment and recycling. We pride ourselves on our development despite the lack of natural resources. We should regard carbon emissions as a constraint, like the shortage of water, land and clean air. By doing this, we would find innovative ways to minimise such emissions. The world is moving towards being carbon neutral. Carbon markets are thriving in places like London and China. Singapore should have a slice of the cake too. Singapore is after all an energy hub and one of the world’s leading future trading hubs.

Without the big nations on board, it may be understandable that other nations approach Copenhagen cautiously. A solitary commitment by any single nation cannot solve this global challenge.

But I hope that all governments will leave Copenhagen energized and with greater political commitment. In the post-Copenhagen scenario, many Singaporeans will hope and expect Singapore to play its role.

Simon Tay is Chairman, Singapore Institute of International Affairs (SIIA) and former chairman of Singapore National Energy Agency

[RickBradford]

Let's try the real story, shall we?

Reuters

Singapore to pledge 16 pct cut in emissions

This "stretch target" is based on the level of greenhouse gas emissions that Singapore would produce by 2020 if no proactive measures to cut them were taken, but relies on a legal deal being reached after the U.N. talks in Copenhagen, ministers said.

.....

A legally binding target is already out of reach for the U.N. talks, with only a political deal possible.

Busted again.

[JR Texas]

One day, the public will get tired of the BOLs and BIG OIL.........the deception, lies, manipulation of information/data, etc. And they will bring a global class action lawsuit against BIG OIL the likes of which we have not seen........similar to the response to the lawsuits brought against the tobacco/cancer industry years ago.

It is this real fear of a massive lawsuit that has stimulated some BIG OIL representatives to dabble in alternative energy R&D.........they can say, "look, we recognized and tried to do something about the problem." That is a smart, strategic move. But that is not telling the entire true.........and the public knows it.

BOLs nonsense aside, there is some more food for thought, and it applies to Southeast Asia:

source: http://en.cop15.dk/?gclid=CIGQv8nRt54CFZAvpAodLGqwog

Vietnam Responds to Climate Change

Climate change, shown by global warming and rising sea level, is one of the biggest challenges to mankind in the 21st century. The escalation in both frequency and severity of natural disasters and other extreme climate phenomena is the talk of the day in many countries around the world. Responding to climate change requires not only efforts from individual countries, but also the joint actions on the global scale for both mitigation and adaptation.

H.E. Mr. Nguyen Tan Dung, Prime Minister of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam

30/11/2009 16:05

In the past 50 years, Vietnam has witnessed a lot of climatic changes. For instance, the average temperature has increased by 0.5 - 0.7oC, the normal sea level has risen by 20cm, and the number of typhoons and tropical depressions rises to 7 or 8 a year. Though preventive measures have been actively taken, losses and damages from disasters are extremely severe for Vietnam. In the last 10 years alone, natural disasters have cost Vietnam around 800 lives and 1.5% of GDP a year.

According to the latest estimates, in 2100 Vietnam’s average temperature could increase by another 2.3oC and the sea level could rise by 75 to 100cm. Many areas in Vietnam could be submerged. The Mekong River delta, which produces more than 50% of rice and contributes 90% of rice export of Vietnam, could see 19-38% of its current land area submerged. Vietnam is among the few countries worst affected by the impacts of climate change, especially by rising sea level due to its long coastline that harbours many densely economic areas and communities. Moreover, the coastal communities are heavily dependent on the weather and climate because of their agricultural, fishery and forestry production. Though full assessment is yet available, it could still be confirmed that climate change has been the biggest and apparent challenge to the protection of food security in Vietnam and the world, threatening the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals and the path to poverty reduction and sustainable development.

Being a Party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol, Vietnam has been making its own efforts and closely cooperating with the world community to respond to impacts of climate change in conformity with the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” specified in the UNFCCC. The Vietnamese Government has actively been implementing the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol and has attained concrete results. The Vietnamese population is 1% of world population and the carbon dioxide emission is only 0.4% of the world. Vietnam has submitted its First National Report to the UNFCCC and is now preparing the second one. The Vietnamese Government has also approved the National Strategy on prevention and mitigation of natural disasters to 2020, published the scenarios on climate change and rising sea level to 2100.

Meanwhile, to actively respond to climate change, the Vietnamese Government approved in 2008 the National Target Programme to Respond to Climate Change (NTP-RCC). The strategic objective of the NTP-RCC is to assess the impacts of climate change on industries, sectors and provinces in each periods, and to have feasible action plans to effectively respond to climate change in both the short- and long-term to ensure sustainable development, tap all the opportunities for economic development on the low-carbon path, use energy effectively and economically, explore and use effectively new energy sources, replace fossil fuels by renewable energy, and to develop green industries. Based on climate change and sea-level rise scenarios, Vietnam is assessing the possible impacts and formulating suitable responses.

Vietnam considers responding to climate change, especially to sea-level rise as an important and crucial task to attain sustained socio-economic development. Together with domestic efforts, Vietnam has actively promoted international cooperation to have coordinated actions, joining the international community to effectively respond to climate change, protect the climatic system on Earth, prevent and mitigate natural disasters. Vietnam is committed to effectively implement measures to reduce Green House Gases (GHG) emissions with the active support of developed countries and the international community.

The Copenhagen Conference is an important milestone in the course of implementation of the Bali Roadmap. At this Conference, Vietnam brings to the world the following understandings:

First, Earth is our common house that requires the collective efforts and contributions from all nations in the fight against climate change.

Second, the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol should remain as fundamental legal documents for the international community to respond to climate change. However, the Kyoto Protocol should be revised and amended to incorporate new provisions for high GHG emission countries.

Third, developed countries should take the lead in making strong mid-term and long-term commitments on GHG reduction. These commitments should be quantifiable, reportable and verifiable in order to limit the increase of global mean temperature to not over 2¬¬0 C by the end of this century.

Fourth, developed countries should provide appropriate financial and technological assistance to countries seriously affected by climate change, especially by sea-level rise, through new financial and technology transfer mechanisms and the access to the adaptation fund.

Fifth, countries including Vietnam, which are most vulnerable to climate change and especially sea-level rise, should be given prioritised mechanisms and special supports in financing and technological transferring, and assisted to strengthen capacity to respond to climate change by high GHG emission countries. The international community should have a coordination body and develop a special support programme for these countries to effectively respond to climate change, and especially to sea-level rise.

Sixth, developing countries should actively contribute to the global efforts by developing and implementing National Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) on a voluntary basis to ensure sustainable development.

As a country providing a fifth of world food exports and also a country among the few worst affected by climate change, especially sea-level rise, Vietnam is particularly grateful for the international assistance so far and would urge for more international support in order to effectively address this challenge so as to contribute more to global food security.

H.E. Mr. Nguyen Tan Dung is Prime Minister of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam

[RickBradford]

... the deception, lies, manipulation of information/data

We're sick and tired of it already.

That's why there's an independent inquiry into CRU, why Michael ("Hide the Decline") Mann is under investigation by his employer, Penn State University, why the UK Met Office has to re-examine 160 years of climate data, and why even the IPCC itself is to launch an investigation.

Now the Climategate scientists have turned on one another to try and save heir own careers.

First up is "Hide the Decline", who distances himself from Prof "Trick" Jones:

One of the scientists to whom the emails were addressed, Professor Michael Mann, the Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University has moved to distance himself from some of the comments in the emails that suggest scientists did not want the IPCC, the UN body charged with monitoring climate change, to consider studies that challenged the view global warming was genuine and man-made.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's The World Tonight, Prof Mann said: "I can't put myself in the mind of the person who wrote that email and sent it. I in no way endorse what was in that email."

Prof Mann also said he could not "justify" a request from Prof Jones that he should delete some of his own emails to prevent them from being seen by outsiders.

"I can't justify the action, I can only speculate that he was feeling so under attack that he made some poor decisions frankly and I think that's clear."

Prof Mann then argued however that there was "absolutely no evidence" that he too had manipulated data.

Edited December 5, 2009 by RickBradford

[RickBradford]

In today's Boston Globe, a Harvard graduate climate scientist has felt emboldened enough to speak about what has been happening in his field. (The paragraph headings in bold are mine)

I am a climate scientist, and it is clear that the evidence that "human activity is prominent [sic] agent in global warming" is NOT overwhelming. The repeated statement that it is does not make it so. Further, even if we accepted the hypothesis, cap-and-trade legislation does not do anything about it.

Hockey stick is BS

Here are the facts. We have known for years that the Mann hockey stick model was wrong, and we know why it was wrong (Mann used only selected data to normalize the principal component analysis, not all of it). He retracted the model. We have known for years that the Medieval Warm period occurred, where the temperatures were higher than they are now (Chaucer spoke of vineyards in northern England). Long before ClimateGate it was known that the IPCC people were trying to fudge the data to get rid of the MWP. And for good reason. If the MWP is "allowed" to exist, this means that temperatures higher than today did not then create a "runaway greenhouse" in the Middle Ages with methane released from the Arctic tundra, ice cap albedo lost, sea levels rising to flood London, etc. etc.), and means that Jim Hansen's runaway greenhouse that posits only amplifying feedbacks (and no damping feedbacks) will not happen now. We now know that the models on which the IPCC alarms are based to not do clouds, they do not do the biosphere, they do not explain the Pliocene warming, and they have never predicted anything, ever, correctly.

Religion

As the believers know but, like religious faithful, every wrong prediction (IPCC underestimated some trends) is claimed to justify even greater alarm (not that the models are poor approximations for reality); the underpredictions (where are the storms? Why "hide the decline"?) are ignored or hidden. As for CO2, we have known for years that CO2 increases have never in the past 300,000 years caused temperature rise (CO2 rise trails temperature increase). IPCC scientists know this too (see their "Copenhagen Diagnosis"); we know that their mathematical fudges that dismiss the fact that CO2 has not been historically causative of temperature rise are incorrect as well. We have also known for years that the alleged one degree temperature rise from 1880 vanishes if sites exposed to urban heat islands are not considered. We have long known that Jones's paper dismissing this explanation (Jones, et al. 1990.

Wrong again

Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land, Nature 347 169- 172) is wrong and potentially fraudulent (see the same data used to confirm urban heat islands in Wang, W-C, Z. Zeng, T. R Karl, 1990. Urban Heat Islands in China. Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 2377-2380). Everyone except Briffa knows that the Briffa conclusions are wrong, and why they are wrong; groups in Finland, Canada (lots of places actually) show cooling by this proxy, not warming; the IPCC even printed the Finn's plot upside down to convert the fact (cooling) into the dogma (warming).

Nonsense

Prof. McCarthy is, of course, part of the IPCC that has suppressed dissenting viewpoints based on solid climate science. His claim to support by "peer review" is nonsense; he has helped corrupt the peer review process. We now have documentary evidence that Jones, Mann, and the other IPCC scientists have been gaming peer review and blackballing opponents. On this point, the entire IPCC staff, including Prof. McCarthy, neither have nor deserve our trust.

Bluff

We have tolerated years of the refusal of Mann and Jones to release data. Now, we learn that much of these data were discarded (one of about 4 data sets that exist), something that would in any other field of science lead to disbarment. We have been annoyed by Al Gore, who declared this science "settled", refused to debate, and demonized skeptics (this is anti-science: debate and skepticism are the core of real science, which is never settled). The very fact that Prof. McCarthy attempts to bluff Congress by asserting the existence of fictional "overwhelming evidence" continues this anti-science activity.

Mad or bad?

All of this was known before Climategate. What was not known until now was the extent to which Jones and Mann were simply deceiving themselves (which happens often in science) or fraudently attempting to deceive others. I am not willing to crucify Jones on the word "trick". Nor, for that matter, on the loss of primary data, keeping only "value added" data (which is hopelessly bad science, but still conceivably not fraud).

Fraud

But the computer code is transparently fraudulent. Here, one finds matrices that add unexplained numbers to recent temperatures and subtract them from older temperatures (these numbers are hard-programmed in), splining observational data to model data, and other smoking guns, all showing that they were doing what was necessary to get the answers that the IPCC wanted, not the answers that the data held. They knew what they were doing, and why they were doing it. If, as Prof. McCarthy insists, "peer review" was functioning, and the IPCC reports are rigorously peer reviewed, why was this not caught? When placing it in context made it highly likely that this type of fraud was occurring?

Abandon?

The second question is: Will this revelation be enough to cause the "global warming believers" to abandon their crusade, and for people to return to sensible environmental science (water use, habitat destruction, land use, this kind of thing)? Perhaps it will. Contrary to Prof. McCarthy's assertion, we have not lost just one research project amid dozens of others that survive. A huge set of primary data are apparently gone. Satellite data are scarcely 40 years old. Everything is interconnected, and anchored on these few studies. Even without the corruption of the peer review process, this is as big a change as quantum mechanics was in physics a century ago.

Corrupted

But now we know that peer review was corrupted, and that no "consensus" exists. The "2500 scientists agree" number is fiction (God knows who they are counting, but to get to this number, they must be including referees, spouses, and pets).

The best argument now for AGW is to argue that CO2 is, after all, a greenhouse gas, its concentration is, after all, increasing, and feedbacks that regulated climate for millions of years might (we can hypothesize) be overwhelmed by human CO2 emissions. It is a hypothesis worthy of investigation, but it has little evidentiary support.

Politics

Thus, there is hope that Climategate will bring to an end the field of political climatology, and allow climatology to again become a science. That said, people intrinsically become committed to ideas. The Pope will not become a Protestant even if angel Gabriel taps him on the shoulder and asks him to. Likewise, Prof. McCarthy may claim until the day he retires that there remains "overwhelming support" for his position, even if every last piece of data supporting it is controverted. As a graduate student at Harvard, I was told that fields do not advance because people change their minds; rather, fields advance because people die.

[JR Texas]

Lies, attempts at diversion, character assassination/science assassination attempts, distortion of facts, manipulation of viewpoints for effect aside.......here is something that was written some time ago, but it is interesting and applies to Southeast Asia.

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipc...egional/300.htm

It does not matter that it is dated.........as stated many times before, the actual scientific debate is long since over.......responsible scientists and politicians are searching for solutions to the problems created by BIG OIL and irresponsible politicians inside BIG GOVERNMENT.

By the way, lawsuits against BIG OIL and irresponsible BIG GOVERNMENT are already taking place (old news).

The BOLs and the people they represent have set themselves up for a series of massive, global, collective lawsuits because they have engaged in a deliberate attempt to mislead the public into thinking that global warming/climate change is a myth, causing massive environmental, health, and social problems.......not to mention engaging in illegal activities (e.g., stealing private emails from a research institution).

What they have done will cost us a fortune to fix.........they should pay for it. They will pay for it.

We saw the same thing happen earlier with the tobacco industry.......same tactics.........same end result: BIG LAWSUITS.

But this time the amounts will be vast. BIG OIL is about to pay for what it has done to present and future generations.

This makes for interesting reading..........just substitute BIG OIL for the tobacco industry:

http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=2115

Remember: Centralized energy equals slavery...........decentralized energy equals freedom.