Seas Rising 60 Percent Faster Than Projected, Study Shows

[maidu]

Here's the draft. Interesting reading... http://ncadac.global...ap1-execsum.pdf

It doesn't matter what sorts of evidence is put forward, those who are fixated on denying there is human-affected climate change will not budge.

[Scott]

It matters. Not everyone has made a decision that is irreversible.

[RickBradford]

It doesn't matter what sorts of evidence is put forward, those who are fixated on denying there is human-affected climate change will not budge.

It doesn't matter what sorts of evidence is put forward, those who are fixated on denying that human-affected climate change is a hugely overblown scare will not budge.

There. Fixed that for you.

Climate "science" is the poster child for fraud, plagiarism, cherry-picked results, data fiddling, statistical ignorance, poor or non-existent controls, confirmation bias, opaque, missing, or unavailable data, and stonewalling when questioned over illegalities.

I don't blame them; in a situation where government is the only source of funding, and government the only consumer of results, the pressure to conform must be considerable, and the price paid for breaking the oath of omertà considerable.

[lovetotravel]

Here's the draft. Interesting reading... http://ncadac.global...ap1-execsum.pdf

It doesn't matter what sorts of evidence is put forward, those who are fixated on denying there is human-affected climate change will not budge.

There was a news article on this in the "other" newspaper. That's exactly what they said. No matter what evidence is provided, some will still not believe it and keep their heads buried in the sand.

Who knows the real impact of humans on the climate, but there is some. You only have to visit Beijing now to see the effects. That city is getting hit due to a variety of human activities.

[maidu]

It matters. Not everyone has made a decision that is irreversible.

Reasonable people like you and me might hope it (what sort of evidence is presented) matters. Yet, indications on this thread show it's nigh impossible to see outlooks (among some deniers) altered in lieu of overwhelming scientific evidence.

[RickBradford]

Here's some more "overwhelming evidence."

Claim: “By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half...scientists have solid experimental and historical evidence to support each of the predictions.” Life Magazine, January 1970.

Claim: “If present trends continue, the world will be … eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Kenneth E.F. Watt, in Earth Day, April 1970.

Claim: “Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth’s surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.” Time Magazine, June 24, 1974.

Claim: "“Snowfalls are now just a thing [in the UK] of the past.” The Independent. March 20, 2000.

Claim: “[by] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots …" Michel Oppenheimer and Robert H. Boyle, 1990.

Claim: “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” Paul Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970.

Claim: “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Paul Ehrlich, September 1971.

Anyone can claim that their evidence is overwhelming -- the Soviet gulags were full of people convicted on the grounds of "overwhelming evidence."

And when "scientists" get rewarded handsomely for producing that "evidence", it is no wonder that we see the kind of shenanigans that climate science is so famous for.

We used to laugh at people who roamed the streets shouting "Repent! The end is nigh", but now they have cushy jobs in the mainstream media or run NGOs.

Edited January 21, 2013 by RickBradford

[canuckamuck]

It matters. Not everyone has made a decision that is irreversible.

Reasonable people like you and me might hope it (what sort of evidence is presented) matters. Yet, indications on this thread show it's nigh impossible to see outlooks (among some deniers) altered in lieu of overwhelming scientific evidence.

Because the poster boys of of climate science have proven time and again that they have little interest in being scientific.

[thaibeachlovers]

It matters. Not everyone has made a decision that is irreversible.

Reasonable people like you and me might hope it (what sort of evidence is presented) matters. Yet, indications on this thread show it's nigh impossible to see outlooks (among some deniers) altered in lieu of overwhelming scientific evidence.

OK, so let's assume that climate change is human caused. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

To make any real change in human caused hothouse gases would cost more than we can afford and result in millions of unemployed people. So, what is the answer? Please don't say "carbon tax", "windmills" or any other touchy feely and totally inadequate "solutions" put up by people with no idea of what to do that would actually change anything without resulting in the collapse of our civilization.

Making grand statements about "climate change" without presenting solutions is as useful as mooring boats in the river and using the props to make the water run faster!

BTW, all the people in Europe and Nth America affected by the cold weather and snow are becoming more sceptical by the minute about "Global Warming", which is what the Chicken Littles of the world were calling it till it became apparent that where they were that it is actually getting colder as well.

Edited January 21, 2013 by thaibeachlovers

[lovetotravel]

It matters. Not everyone has made a decision that is irreversible.

Reasonable people like you and me might hope it (what sort of evidence is presented) matters. Yet, indications on this thread show it's nigh impossible to see outlooks (among some deniers) altered in lieu of overwhelming scientific evidence.

OK, so let's assume that climate change is human caused. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

To make any real change in human caused hothouse gases would cost more than we can afford and result in millions of unemployed people. So, what is the answer? Please don't say "carbon tax", "windmills" or any other touchy feely and totally inadequate "solutions" put up by people with no idea of what to do that would actually change anything without resulting in the collapse of our civilization.

Making grand statements about "climate change" without presenting solutions is as useful as mooring boats in the river and using the props to make the water run faster!

BTW, all the people in Europe and Nth America affected by the cold weather and snow are becoming more sceptical by the minute about "Global Warming", which is what the Chicken Littles of the world were calling it till it became apparent that where they were that it is actually getting colder as well.

I just read that report. It's calling for more "extreme" weather. Both hot and cold. The planet does seem to be warming, and we are experiencing more extreme weather. Could be a natural process, could be human caused. I'm in the camp that at least some of it is caused by human activity. Looking out my window now at the haze created every year around this time, it's hard to say that blanket of smoke doesn't have at least some impact on our planet.

Edited January 21, 2013 by lovetotravel

[thaibeachlovers]

It matters. Not everyone has made a decision that is irreversible.

Reasonable people like you and me might hope it (what sort of evidence is presented) matters. Yet, indications on this thread show it's nigh impossible to see outlooks (among some deniers) altered in lieu of overwhelming scientific evidence.

OK, so let's assume that climate change is human caused. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

To make any real change in human caused hothouse gases would cost more than we can afford and result in millions of unemployed people. So, what is the answer? Please don't say "carbon tax", "windmills" or any other touchy feely and totally inadequate "solutions" put up by people with no idea of what to do that would actually change anything without resulting in the collapse of our civilization.

Making grand statements about "climate change" without presenting solutions is as useful as mooring boats in the river and using the props to make the water run faster!

BTW, all the people in Europe and Nth America affected by the cold weather and snow are becoming more sceptical by the minute about "Global Warming", which is what the Chicken Littles of the world were calling it till it became apparent that where they were that it is actually getting colder as well.

I just read that report. It's calling for more "extreme" weather. Both hot and cold. The planet does seem to be warming, and we are experiencing more extreme weather. Could be a natural process, could be human caused. I'm in the camp that at least some of it is caused by human activity. Looking out my window now at the haze created every year around this time, it's hard to say that blanket of smoke doesn't have at least some impact on our planet.

Yes, you are correct, some human activity does have an impact, but what are all the CC supporters doing about it? Writing on here won't change a thing. They need to stop travelling in carbon powered transportation and using electricity generated by carbon combustion for a start. However, if I were to make a wild guess as to how many actually do that, I'd be thinking NIL!

[lovetotravel]

From your article:

http://www.foxnews.c...ntal-forecasts/

Predicting the weather -- especially a decade or more in advance -- is unbelievably challenging.

.......

Claim: “By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half...scientists have solid experimental and historical evidence to support each of the predictions.” Life Magazine, January 1970.

Life Magazine also noted that some people disagree...

Claim: “If present trends continue, the world will be … eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Kenneth E.F. Watt, in Earth Day, April 1970.

How could scientists have made such off-base claims? Dr. Paul Ehrlich, author of "The Population Bomb" and president of Stanford University's Center for Conservation Biology, told FoxNews.com that ideas about climate science changed a great deal in the the '70s and '80s.

"Present trends didn't continue," Ehrlich said of Watt's prediction. "There was considerable debate in the climatological community in the '60s about whether there would be cooling or warming … Discoveries in the '70s and '80s showed that the warming was going to be the overwhelming force."

Claim: "“Snowfalls are now just a thing [in the UK] of the past.” The Independent. March 20, 2000.

A spokesman for the government-funded British Council, where Viner now works as the lead climate change expert, told FoxNews.com that climate science had improved since the prediction was made.

"Over the past decade, climate science has moved on considerably and there is now more understanding about the impact climate change will have on weather patterns in the coming years," British Council spokesman Mark Herbert said. "However, Dr Viner believes that his general predictions are still relevant."

Claim: “[by] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots …" Michel Oppenheimer and Robert H. Boyle, 1990.

Oppenheimer told FoxNews.com that he was trying to illustrate one possible outcome of failing to curb emissions, not making a specific prediction. He added that the gist of his story had in fact come true, even if the events had not occurred in the U.S.

"On the whole I would stand by these predictions -- not predictions, sorry, scenarios -- as having at least in a general way actually come true," he said. "There's been extensive drought, devastating drought, in significant parts of the world. The fraction of the world that's in drought has increased over that period."

Claim: “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” Paul Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970.

"Certainly the first part of that was very largely true -- only off in time," Ehrlich told FoxNews.com. "The second part is, well -- the fish haven't washed up, but there are very large dead zones around the world, and they frequently produce considerable stench."

"Again, not totally accurate, but I never claimed to predict the future with full accuracy," he said.

Claim: “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Paul Ehrlich, September 1971.

"When you predict the future, you get things wrong," Ehrlich admitted, but "how wrong is another question. I would have lost if I had had taken the bet. However, if you look closely at England, what can I tell you? They're having all kinds of problems, just like everybody else."

[lovetotravel]

I just re-read that global change article from Craig. Everywhere throughout the text are words like "prediction", "possibility", "expected", etc. Nowhere do I see them saying "We guarantee" blah blah blah will happen.

They do say these things though:

These changes are part of the pattern of global climate change, which is primarily driven by human activity

.....

Evidence for climate change abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans. This evidence has been compiled by scientists and engineers from around the world, using satellites, weather balloons, thermometers, buoys, and other observing systems. The sum total of this evidence tells an unambiguous story: the planet is warming.

[chuckd]

Here is another Hollywood celebrity out to save the planet.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DiCaprio takes break to focus on the environment

9:24 AM Saturday Jan 19, 2013

Django Unchained and Titanic star Leonardo DiCaprio says he is planning to take a significant break from filming and concentrate on his environmental campaigning.

In an interview with Germany's mass circulation daily Bild, the 38-year-old American actor said: "I am a bit drained. I'm now going to take a long, long break. I've done three films in two years and I'm just worn out.''

"I would like to improve the world a bit. I will fly around the world doing good for the environment,'' added DiCaprio, in comments published in German.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10860154

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My question would be if he really wants to help the environment, why is he burning all that jet fuel to go around the world?

Why doesn't he ride a bicycle around the world?

[canuckamuck]

I just re-read that global change article from Craig. Everywhere throughout the text are words like "prediction", "possibility", "expected", etc. Nowhere do I see them saying "We guarantee" blah blah blah will happen.

They do say these things though:

These changes are part of the pattern of global climate change, which is primarily driven by human activity

.....

Evidence for climate change abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans. This evidence has been compiled by scientists and engineers from around the world, using satellites, weather balloons, thermometers, buoys, and other observing systems. The sum total of this evidence tells an unambiguous story: the planet is warming.

Again the bait and switch. The author makes this tremendous claim " These changes are part of the pattern of global climate change, which is primarily driven by human activity". And then instead of giving evidence in support of this indefensible claim; he gives evidence of the indisputable fact that the climate changes. This is the script, this is how they all do it. Say one thing and prove it by giving evidence for something else.

You could say that man's activity is the primary driver for slowing the rotation of the earth. The proof: There are more humans doing more things, and the rotation of the earth is slowing.

[RickBradford]

Predicting the weather -- especially a decade or more in advance -- is unbelievably challenging.

Quite so.

So why do we have to put up with endless activists, bureaucrats, politicians and that globulous fraud Al-Gorzeera chanting: "We must act now to avert a planetary climate catastrophe. In 2/5/10 years time it will be too late."? (It wasn't, of course).

What perverted logic says "We don't know what is going to happen in the future because prediction is so challenging; but we know right now 100% what the policy prescription should be and when it should be introduced."

Funny, too, how all the policy prescriptions give those people who propose them more influence, more power, more money.

These people couldn't care tuppence about saving the planet. Keeping the scare going on sea-level rise fills bureaucratic pockets (already happened in Australia), "extreme weather" is a godsend for the reinsurance business, and alarmism all round benefits politicians, journalists, activists and bureaucrats to a sizeable degree.

It is simply extreme abuse of the precautionary principle in particular, and science in general.

[thaibeachlovers]

Here is another Hollywood celebrity out to save the planet.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DiCaprio takes break to focus on the environment

9:24 AM Saturday Jan 19, 2013

Django Unchained and Titanic star Leonardo DiCaprio says he is planning to take a significant break from filming and concentrate on his environmental campaigning.

In an interview with Germany's mass circulation daily Bild, the 38-year-old American actor said: "I am a bit drained. I'm now going to take a long, long break. I've done three films in two years and I'm just worn out.''

"I would like to improve the world a bit. I will fly around the world doing good for the environment,'' added DiCaprio, in comments published in German.

http://www.nzherald....jectid=10860154

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My question would be if he really wants to help the environment, why is he burning all that jet fuel to go around the world?

Why doesn't he ride a bicycle around the world?

Didn't you know, if you're a celebrity/ environmentalist/ politician/ Al Gore, your private jet doesn't cause pollution.

Because it's all "do as I say, not as I do".

[maidu]

It matters. Not everyone has made a decision that is irreversible.

Reasonable people like you and me might hope it (what sort of evidence is presented) matters. Yet, indications on this thread show it's nigh impossible to see outlooks (among some deniers) altered in lieu of overwhelming scientific evidence.

OK, so let's assume that climate change is human caused. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

To make any real change in human caused hothouse gases would cost more than we can afford and result in millions of unemployed people. So, what is the answer? Please don't say "carbon tax", "windmills" or any other touchy feely and totally inadequate "solutions" put up by people with no idea of what to do that would actually change anything without resulting in the collapse of our civilization.

Making grand statements about "climate change" without presenting solutions is as useful as mooring boats in the river and using the props to make the water run faster!

BTW, all the people in Europe and Nth America affected by the cold weather and snow are becoming more sceptical by the minute about "Global Warming", which is what the Chicken Littles of the world were calling it till it became apparent that where they were that it is actually getting colder as well.

Big challenges require many factors to try and fix. When WW"s I and II broke out, many in the US were stalwart in staying out of 'Europe's problem.' If not for Pearl Harbor, it's likely the US would not have put boots on the ground in Europe. The point being: there was no silver bullet fix. It took a lot of people, a lot of resources, effort, and considerable time to topple the antagonists.

For those saying, "WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?" ....the proposed answers to that could form discussions lasting weeks or longer. BTW, just because someone like myself, believes GW is happening and is human-caused to a significant degree, does not necessarily mean I agree with all the proposed fixes. It's a mixed bag. Whether or not re-cycling, using less fuel/electricity or doing a hundred other environmentally decent things makes much of a dent in GW is not the whole point. Doing environmentally decent things is good, regardless of one's stance on GW. Sure, one or a few isolated people aren't going to have a measurable affect, but getting tens of millions to do environmentally decent things will have a profound positive effect on the planet.

It's like donations for a good cause. If only a handful of people contribute a dollar apiece, it won't even pay for the printing of the petition. Yet, if hundreds of thousands of people donate an average of 5 dollars each, then the cumulative amount is significant.

[maidu]

Europe and the US get cold every winter. They get hot every summer. GW (or climate change, if you will) has to do with averages and trends. If you take an objective look at average annual temperatures, you'll see increased warming in many parts of the world. A few places buck the trend (climate is not an exact science), but overall, there are dozens of record-setting heatwaves, and no record-setting cold snaps (still talking about annual averages) in each of the past 15 years or so.

[canuckamuck]

But the debate isn't that it got warmer. We all can see and interpret the graphs. The debate is over whether or not it is continuing to warm and whether or not we have contributed to it, and to what degree.

It is quite obvious that our polluting ways are harming the environment. But it is not clear that we are doing much or anything to average global temperatures. Because we cannot look forward we need to look back and see if global temperatures have risen like this in the past - when we did not exist. The answer appears to be; yes they have. If we have a historical warmings, than humans appear to have either an alibi, or at the least a powerful accomplice.

[F430murci]

The hot v cold issues are easily addressed in terms of global warming. Surprised no one really discusses or grasps concept. Dr. Jeff Masters to me is one of the smartest most objective meteorologist in US.

Maybe start with his basics and then move to explanations at cooling.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2328

[maidu]

But the debate isn't that it got warmer. We all can see and interpret the graphs. The debate is over whether or not it is continuing to warm and whether or not we have contributed to it, and to what degree.

For some deniers, part of the debate is whether the Earth is getting warmer. Look at Bradford's and some others' prior posts. He indicates there's just as much evidence for an accelerated cooling trend.

It is quite obvious that our polluting ways are harming the environment. But it is not clear that we are doing much or anything to average global temperatures. Because we cannot look forward we need to look back and see if global temperatures have risen like this in the past - when we did not exist. The answer appears to be; yes they have. If we have a historical warmings, than humans appear to have either an alibi, or at the least a powerful accomplice.

For sure, there have been hot periods on Earth. To find a time in the recent past, when the world has been noticably warmer than it is now - I'll let you do that search. Yet, it's doubtful you'll find a time in the history where heating is increasing to the degree it's happening currently - with the possible exception of gargantuan volcanic activity - but volcanos can cause cooling also, as shown by Europe's 'Mini Ice Age' which happened a year or two after Krakatoa's eruption, a half world away.

When you say, "we cannot look forward" .... sounds strange. All the time, every day, people make predictions about things. There are thousands of precautions we take to preclude possible calamities. People get innoculated, they buy heavy coats in the Fall, they put on sun tan lotion before lying in the sun, they put on condoms before having sex with a stranger. A person never knows absolutely 100% that they'll get a problem if they don't take precautions, but we have ways of becoming aprised of trends and predictions.

Climate scientists function similarly to disease specialists. They garner data, and attest what sorts of things might happen in the future withing their field of expertise, and suggest precautionary action accordingly.

(June, 2011) Stanford University climate scientists forecast permanently hotter summers beginning in 20 years. Large areas of the globe are likely to warm up so quickly that by the middle of this century even the coolest summers will be hotter than the hottest summers of the past 50 years.

source

[maidu]

The hot v cold issues are easily addressed in terms of global warming. Surprised no one really discusses or grasps concept. Dr. Jeff Masters to me is one of the smartest most objective meteorologist in US.

Maybe start with his basics and then move to explanations at cooling.

http://www.wundergro...l?entrynum=2328

thanks for that. The first graph on that page has already been posted on this thread (by me). The other graphs and info are informative. It backs up what I've been purporting all along: all the record temperatures set in 2012 worldwide were for heat. None were set for cold. The page emphasizes another interesting factor: Last year was an 'La Nina' year, and la Nina years are generally cooler on average. So, if all those 'hottest ever' records were set in this past 'la nina' year, it won't be surprising if additional 'hottest ever' records are set when El Nino (hotter than average) pattern returns. .......and on for ensuing years.

Is it too early to start planting banana groves in Scotland?

[canuckamuck]

But the debate isn't that it got warmer. We all can see and interpret the graphs. The debate is over whether or not it is continuing to warm and whether or not we have contributed to it, and to what degree.

For some deniers, part of the debate is whether the Earth is getting warmer. Look at Bradford's and some others' prior posts. He indicates there's just as much evidence for an accelerated cooling trend.

Nowhere do I say it is getting warmer. i am only saying it got warmer. It may be that we are cooling.

It is quite obvious that our polluting ways are harming the environment. But it is not clear that we are doing much or anything to average global temperatures. Because we cannot look forward we need to look back and see if global temperatures have risen like this in the past - when we did not exist. The answer appears to be; yes they have. If we have a historical warmings, than humans appear to have either an alibi, or at the least a powerful accomplice.

For sure, there have been hot periods on Earth. To find a time in the recent past, when the world has been noticably warmer than it is now - I'll let you do that search. Yet, it's doubtful you'll find a time in the history where heating is increasing to the degree it's happening currently - with the possible exception of gargantuan volcanic activity - but volcanos can cause cooling also, as shown by Europe's 'Mini Ice Age' which happened a year or two after Krakatoa's eruption, a half world away.

About every 100,000 years in the past, the earth warmed to hotter than it is now, and each time it was rapid warming (relatively speaking)

continued

Edited January 21, 2013 by canuckamuck

[canuckamuck]

When you say, "we cannot look forward" .... sounds strange. All the time, every day, people make predictions about things. There are thousands of precautions we take to preclude possible calamities. People get innoculated, they buy heavy coats in the Fall, they put on sun tan lotion before lying in the sun, they put on condoms before having sex with a stranger. A person never knows absolutely 100% that they'll get a problem if they don't take precautions, but we have ways of becoming aprised of trends and predictions.

Climate scientists function similarly to disease specialists. They garner data, and attest what sorts of things might happen in the future withing their field of expertise, and suggest precautionary action accordingly.

(June, 2011) Stanford University climate scientists forecast permanently hotter summers beginning in 20 years. Large areas of the globe are likely to warm up so quickly that by the middle of this century even the coolest summers will be hotter than the hottest summers of the past 50 years.

source

Obviously I was saying that we have no data from the future so we need to look at the data from the past.

[RickBradford]

Those with open minds (aka skeptics) may enjoy this video presentation (c. 38mins long) by Prof Nir Shaviv on climate drivers and the consequences for the future climate and sea levels.

He presents plenty of real science, and along with excoriating the IPCC for its scientific reductionism (ie its desperate attempts to convict CO2 as the sole player in climate forcing), he shows a neat graph of the correlation between the 11-year cycle of solar flux and sea levels (at about 28mins).

Very briefly, his conclusion is that CO2 is a significant climate driver, but if you don't also consider the role of the sun, you will necessarily exaggerate the importance of CO2 on climate. He thinks that the 21st century will see warming of somewhere between 0.5C and 1.5C.

http://sciencebits.com/Munich-2012

As a friendly warning, people who are clinging to convenient beliefs that "the science is settled" will probably not want to watch this.

[thaibeachlovers]

The hot v cold issues are easily addressed in terms of global warming. Surprised no one really discusses or grasps concept. Dr. Jeff Masters to me is one of the smartest most objective meteorologist in US.

Maybe start with his basics and then move to explanations at cooling.

http://www.wundergro...l?entrynum=2328

thanks for that. The first graph on that page has already been posted on this thread (by me). The other graphs and info are informative. It backs up what I've been purporting all along: all the record temperatures set in 2012 worldwide were for heat. None were set for cold. The page emphasizes another interesting factor: Last year was an 'La Nina' year, and la Nina years are generally cooler on average. So, if all those 'hottest ever' records were set in this past 'la nina' year, it won't be surprising if additional 'hottest ever' records are set when El Nino (hotter than average) pattern returns. .......and on for ensuing years.

Is it too early to start planting banana groves in Scotland?

No one is saying that the world isn't trending hotter, but if you were to tell people that they can't travel, fly, use electricity generated by carbon, drive carbon powered cars etc etc etc because it MIGHT reduce the temperture, how many do you think will support the necessary measures to POSSIBLY effect change. We can all talk about it, but how do we get billions of people to stop using carbon as a fuel?

Reducing the world's population would be a good start, but I know that's not going to happen.

[RickBradford]

Reducing the world's population would be a good start, but I know that's not going to happen.

I think you're being unduly pessimistic; there's plenty of influential Greens pushing the notion as hard as they can.

Humans are plague on Earth Attenborough

Plus, if Green "clean energy" policies drive the price of food beyond the reach of the world's poorest, as intended, sea-level rise will be irrelevant, since there won't be any poor people living next to the ocean, and the rest, Al Gore included, can rent a U-Haul and move inland.

[chuckd]

As a global warming doubter, it seems to me the following is driving the global warming theorists more than anything.

This is Trillions with a "T".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Davos call for $14trn 'greening' of global economy

Political and business leaders warned of need to ensure sustainable growth

TOM BAWDEN TUESDAY 22 JANUARY 2013

An unprecedented $14trn (£8.8trn) greening of the global economy is the only way to ensure long-term sustainable growth, according to a stark warning delivered to political and business leaders as they descended on the World Economic Forum in Davos yesterday.

Only a sustained and dramatic shift to infrastructure and industrial practices using low-carbon technology can save the world and its economy from devastating global warming, according to a Davos-commissioned alliance led by the former Mexican President, Felipe Calderon, in the most dramatic call so far to fight climate change on business grounds.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/davos-call-for-14trn-greening--of-global-economy-8460994.html

[RickBradford]

^^^

Follow the money, as always.

This is why the AGW sympathisers always try to push the risible idea that the skeptic movement is lavishly funded (by Big Oil, usually), hoping that people will not notice the tens of billions of dollars which goes each year in propping up the global warming scare.

[maidu]

I'm not a proponent of throwing money at a problem. I think a large part of moving toward a saner world is influence on children. Steer children toward a more environmental outlook (as opposed to rote learning of the three R's).

The hot v cold issues are easily addressed in terms of global warming. Surprised no one really discusses or grasps concept. Dr. Jeff Masters to me is one of the smartest most objective meteorologist in US.

Maybe start with his basics and then move to explanations at cooling.

http://www.wundergro...l?entrynum=2328

thanks for that. The first graph on that page has already been posted on this thread (by me). The other graphs and info are informative. It backs up what I've been purporting all along: all the record temperatures set in 2012 worldwide were for heat. None were set for cold. The page emphasizes another interesting factor: Last year was an 'La Nina' year, and la Nina years are generally cooler on average. So, if all those 'hottest ever' records were set in this past 'la nina' year, it won't be surprising if additional 'hottest ever' records are set when El Nino (hotter than average) pattern returns. .......and on for ensuing years.

Is it too early to start planting banana groves in Scotland?

No one is saying that the world isn't trending hotter, but if you were to tell people that they can't travel, fly, use electricity generated by carbon, drive carbon powered cars etc etc etc because it MIGHT reduce the temperture, how many do you think will support the necessary measures to POSSIBLY effect change. We can all talk about it, but how do we get billions of people to stop using carbon as a fuel? Reducing the world's population would be a good start, but I know that's not going to happen.

I agree somewhat; that simply telling people to reduce car/plane/electicity use to help heal the planet - won't garner much compliance. People need to also know the reasons why, and to feel like they're part of the solution - ....to feel included. I also agree that making more than one or two children is the one most irresponsible things a person can do for the well-being of the planet.

Where women are educated and don't feel oppressed, they have less children. It's interesting that many westerners are desperate to adopt a child (and will pay tens of thousands of dollars), whereas Asians think adoption is very odd concept (why devote resources and affection to a child you didn't create?!?). Free and unhindered condom distribution ww would go a long way to making the planet more habitable, .....not just for this one species, but for the rest.