COP21: climate deal draft agreed after marathon talks

[Pimay1]

The "18 yers premise is a myth...summed up in this post from another thread...

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/669189-global-warming-no-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists/?p=6848270

I have more respect for Dr. Jeff Masters than anyone when it comes to climate issues.

http://www.wundergro...th-no-slow-down

One often hears the statement in the media that global warming stopped in 1998, or that there has been no global warming for the past 16 years. Why pick 16 years? Why not some nice round number like 20 years? Or better yet, 30 years, since the climate is generally defined as the average weather experienced over a period of 30 years or longer? Temperatures at Earth's surface undergo natural, decades-long warming and cooling trends, related to the La Niña/El Niño cycle and the 11-year sunspot cycle. The reason one often hears the year 1998 used as a base year to measure global temperature trends is that this is a cherry-picked year. An extraordinarily powerful El Niño event that was the strongest on record brought about a temporary increase in surface ocean temperatures over a vast area of the tropical Pacific that year, helping boost global surface temperatures to the highest levels on record (global temperatures were warmer in both 2005 and 2010, but not by much.) But in the years from 2005 - 2012, La Niña events have been present for at least a portion of every single year, helping keep Earth's surface relatively cool. Thus, if one draws a straight-line fit of global surface temperatures from 1998 to 2012, a climate trend showing little global warming results. If one picks any year prior to 1998, or almost any year after 1998, a global warming trend does result. The choice of 1998 is a deliberate abuse of statistics in an attempt to manipulate people into drawing a false conclusion on global temperature trends. One of my favorite examples of this manipulation of statistics is shown an animated graph called "The Escalator", created by skepticalscience.com (Figure 1).

Edited by F430murci, 2013-09-21 21:57:49.

This quote from the founder of Greenpeace Dr. Patrick Moore 2015 Annual GWPF Lecture Institute of Mechanical Engineers, London 14 October 2015

From direct observation we already know that the extreme predictions of CO2’s impact on global temperature are highly unlikely given that about one-third of all our CO2 emissions have been discharged during the past 18 years and there has been no statistically significant warming.

Earlier this year the leaders of the G7 countries agreed that fossil fuels should be phased out by 2100, a most bizarre development to say the least. Of course no intelligent person really believes this will happen but it is a testament to the power of the elites that have converged around the catastrophic human-caused climate change that so many alleged world leaders must participate in the charade. How might we convince them to celebrate CO2 rather than to denigrate it?

[cumgranosalum]

4 myths about climate change.....

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/09/top-climate-myths-ipcc

Myth 1: Global warming has stopped.

Myth 2: Arctic sea ice is recovering

Myth 3: Growing Antarctic ice undermines global-warming concerns.

Myth 4: Global warming won't be a big deal; it might even be good for you.

[cumgranosalum]

The "18 yers premise is a myth...summed up in this post from another thread...

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/669189-global-warming-no-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists/?p=6848270

I have more respect for Dr. Jeff Masters than anyone when it comes to climate issues.

http://www.wundergro...th-no-slow-down

One often hears the statement in the media that global warming stopped in 1998, or that there has been no global warming for the past 16 years. Why pick 16 years? Why not some nice round number like 20 years? Or better yet, 30 years, since the climate is generally defined as the average weather experienced over a period of 30 years or longer? Temperatures at Earth's surface undergo natural, decades-long warming and cooling trends, related to the La Niña/El Niño cycle and the 11-year sunspot cycle. The reason one often hears the year 1998 used as a base year to measure global temperature trends is that this is a cherry-picked year. An extraordinarily powerful El Niño event that was the strongest on record brought about a temporary increase in surface ocean temperatures over a vast area of the tropical Pacific that year, helping boost global surface temperatures to the highest levels on record (global temperatures were warmer in both 2005 and 2010, but not by much.) But in the years from 2005 - 2012, La Niña events have been present for at least a portion of every single year, helping keep Earth's surface relatively cool. Thus, if one draws a straight-line fit of global surface temperatures from 1998 to 2012, a climate trend showing little global warming results. If one picks any year prior to 1998, or almost any year after 1998, a global warming trend does result. The choice of 1998 is a deliberate abuse of statistics in an attempt to manipulate people into drawing a false conclusion on global temperature trends. One of my favorite examples of this manipulation of statistics is shown an animated graph called "The Escalator", created by skepticalscience.com (Figure 1).

Edited by F430murci, 2013-09-21 21:57:49.

This quote from the founder of Greenpeace Dr. Patrick Moore 2015 Annual GWPF Lecture Institute of Mechanical Engineers, London 14 October 2015

From direct observation we already know that the extreme predictions of CO2’s impact on global temperature are highly unlikely given that about one-third of all our CO2 emissions have been discharged during the past 18 years and there has been no statistically significant warming.

Earlier this year the leaders of the G7 countries agreed that fossil fuels should be phased out by 2100, a most bizarre development to say the least. Of course no intelligent person really believes this will happen but it is a testament to the power of the elites that have converged around the catastrophic human-caused climate change that so many alleged world leaders must participate in the charade. How might we convince them to celebrate CO2 rather than to denigrate it?

..and what is your point?

[Pimay1]

The "18 yers premise is a myth...summed up in this post from another thread...

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/669189-global-warming-no-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists/?p=6848270

I have more respect for Dr. Jeff Masters than anyone when it comes to climate issues.

http://www.wundergro...th-no-slow-down

One often hears the statement in the media that global warming stopped in 1998, or that there has been no global warming for the past 16 years. Why pick 16 years? Why not some nice round number like 20 years? Or better yet, 30 years, since the climate is generally defined as the average weather experienced over a period of 30 years or longer? Temperatures at Earth's surface undergo natural, decades-long warming and cooling trends, related to the La Niña/El Niño cycle and the 11-year sunspot cycle. The reason one often hears the year 1998 used as a base year to measure global temperature trends is that this is a cherry-picked year. An extraordinarily powerful El Niño event that was the strongest on record brought about a temporary increase in surface ocean temperatures over a vast area of the tropical Pacific that year, helping boost global surface temperatures to the highest levels on record (global temperatures were warmer in both 2005 and 2010, but not by much.) But in the years from 2005 - 2012, La Niña events have been present for at least a portion of every single year, helping keep Earth's surface relatively cool. Thus, if one draws a straight-line fit of global surface temperatures from 1998 to 2012, a climate trend showing little global warming results. If one picks any year prior to 1998, or almost any year after 1998, a global warming trend does result. The choice of 1998 is a deliberate abuse of statistics in an attempt to manipulate people into drawing a false conclusion on global temperature trends. One of my favorite examples of this manipulation of statistics is shown an animated graph called "The Escalator", created by skepticalscience.com (Figure 1).

Edited by F430murci, 2013-09-21 21:57:49.

This quote from the founder of Greenpeace Dr. Patrick Moore 2015 Annual GWPF Lecture Institute of Mechanical Engineers, London 14 October 2015

From direct observation we already know that the extreme predictions of CO2’s impact on global temperature are highly unlikely given that about one-third of all our CO2 emissions have been discharged during the past 18 years and there has been no statistically significant warming.

Earlier this year the leaders of the G7 countries agreed that fossil fuels should be phased out by 2100, a most bizarre development to say the least. Of course no intelligent person really believes this will happen but it is a testament to the power of the elites that have converged around the catastrophic human-caused climate change that so many alleged world leaders must participate in the charade. How might we convince them to celebrate CO2 rather than to denigrate it?

..and what is your point?

The point is that the father of the global warming movement sees what the climate change scam has turned into. He also made the statement that the COP21 meeting in Paris was bullshit. I'm sure he knows more about it than any of us here on TV.

[cumgranosalum]

The "18 yers premise is a myth...summed up in this post from another thread...

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/669189-global-warming-no-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists/?p=6848270

I have more respect for Dr. Jeff Masters than anyone when it comes to climate issues.

http://www.wundergro...th-no-slow-down

One often hears the statement in the media that global warming stopped in 1998, or that there has been no global warming for the past 16 years. Why pick 16 years? Why not some nice round number like 20 years? Or better yet, 30 years, since the climate is generally defined as the average weather experienced over a period of 30 years or longer? Temperatures at Earth's surface undergo natural, decades-long warming and cooling trends, related to the La Niña/El Niño cycle and the 11-year sunspot cycle. The reason one often hears the year 1998 used as a base year to measure global temperature trends is that this is a cherry-picked year. An extraordinarily powerful El Niño event that was the strongest on record brought about a temporary increase in surface ocean temperatures over a vast area of the tropical Pacific that year, helping boost global surface temperatures to the highest levels on record (global temperatures were warmer in both 2005 and 2010, but not by much.) But in the years from 2005 - 2012, La Niña events have been present for at least a portion of every single year, helping keep Earth's surface relatively cool. Thus, if one draws a straight-line fit of global surface temperatures from 1998 to 2012, a climate trend showing little global warming results. If one picks any year prior to 1998, or almost any year after 1998, a global warming trend does result. The choice of 1998 is a deliberate abuse of statistics in an attempt to manipulate people into drawing a false conclusion on global temperature trends. One of my favorite examples of this manipulation of statistics is shown an animated graph called "The Escalator", created by skepticalscience.com (Figure 1).

Edited by F430murci, 2013-09-21 21:57:49.

This quote from the founder of Greenpeace Dr. Patrick Moore 2015 Annual GWPF Lecture Institute of Mechanical Engineers, London 14 October 2015

From direct observation we already know that the extreme predictions of CO2s impact on global temperature are highly unlikely given that about one-third of all our CO2 emissions have been discharged during the past 18 years and there has been no statistically significant warming.

Earlier this year the leaders of the G7 countries agreed that fossil fuels should be phased out by 2100, a most bizarre development to say the least. Of course no intelligent person really believes this will happen but it is a testament to the power of the elites that have converged around the catastrophic human-caused climate change that so many alleged world leaders must participate in the charade. How might we convince them to celebrate CO2 rather than to denigrate it?

..and what is your point?

The point is that the father of the global warming movement sees what the climate change scam has turned into. He also made the statement that the COP21 meeting in Paris was bullshit. I'm sure he knows more about it than any of us here on TV.

So from this one statement from someone who is convinced that global warming is real that there is no such thing?

Sorry, I'm not with you....but who could be?

[cumgranosalum]

The only thing that shows global warming since 1997 is adjusted data, it's a joke..

LOOK HERE:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/15/americas-most-advanced-climate-station-data-shows-us-in-a-10-year-cooling-trend/

The RURAL US data, which is the most accurate surface temp data shows cooling.

and on top of that America's most advanced climate station data shows COOLING.

the satellite data shows cooling and was only adjusted to show a warming pause.

How would you explain that there is this global warming while the entire rural area's of the USA, a massive country with huge coastlines on both the atlantic and pacific shows cooling?

Oh lemme guess you actually believe that bullshit about the heat going into the ocean?

The only thing more pathetic than the NOAA's 'official line' bullshit are the people that believe it, especially when repeatedly confronted with the truth. Even NASA's and the NOAA's own data completely contradicts the global warming myth. GW doesn't exist, the trend is now cooling, numerous scientific organizations that are not tied to NOAA,IPCC,NASA Goddard RAW politics are saying that.

I'll say it again, the heat is deep in the ocean along with Iraq's WMD.

Here's a couple more.. # of days in the US over 95*F DOWN.

# of days in the US below freezing UP.

I read as much as I can on CC, changed from Global Warming when it was discovered there had been no warming for years. My take is there is no warming, no increase in incidence of typhoons, droughts, natural didasters, etc.

Now, ignoring the UN's own figures that reinforce there has been no warming for 16+ years, these parasites strike an agreement to limit the rise to 2 degrees. What are these idiots smoking?

The lie won't stop now though; too many making too much out of perpetuating what will be shown to be the greatest lie of our time, if not all time.

I wonder how many tonnes of emissions resulted from politicians private jets flying across the world for this meaningless 'conference'.

If you had of actually read the science on Climate Change and Global Warming you would know BOTH terms have been used by scientists over 120 years so I doubt you have even a basic knowledge on CC / GW. You would also know the latest scientific research shows NO pause in GW over the past 25 years compared to the previous 25 years. What isn't stopping is boosters for the misinformation from Fossil Fuel corporations such as yourself who have little to no understanding of the issue as your comments clearly demonstrate. Also if you had a clue you would also know that all CC / GW conferences are Carbon Footprint Neutral using Carbon Offset payments.

The outcomes of COP21 have been better than expected. Well done to those involved. People who actually know what they are talking about.

that bullshit about the heat going into the ocean?" - Course not water's colkd isn't it??????

[up2u2]

This quote from the founder of Greenpeace Dr. Patrick Moore 2015 Annual GWPF Lecture Institute of Mechanical Engineers, London 14 October 2015

From direct observation we already know that the extreme predictions of CO2’s impact on global temperature are highly unlikely given that about one-third of all our CO2 emissions have been discharged during the past 18 years and there has been no statistically significant warming.

Earlier this year the leaders of the G7 countries agreed that fossil fuels should be phased out by 2100, a most bizarre development to say the least. Of course no intelligent person really believes this will happen but it is a testament to the power of the elites that have converged around the catastrophic human-caused climate change that so many alleged world leaders must participate in the charade. How might we convince them to celebrate CO2 rather than to denigrate it?

..and what is your point?

The point is that the father of the global warming movement sees what the climate change scam has turned into. He also made the statement that the COP21 meeting in Paris was bullshit. I'm sure he knows more about it than any of us here on TV.

"the father of the global warming movement"

lol where on Earth did you get that statement from? Patrick Moore is one of the most discredited Climate Deniers and has been for many many years. When it comes to the science on GW / CC Moore wouldn't know 'his ass from his elbow'.

Greenpeace Statement on Patrick Moore:

"Patrick Moore promotes such anti-environmental positions as clearcut logging, nuclear power, farmed salmon, PVC (vinyl) production, genetically engineered crops, and mining. Clients for his consulting services are a veritable Who’s Who of companies that Greenpeace has exposed for environmental misdeeds, including Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, and BHP Minerals."

Greenpeace Facts On Patrick Moore Here

[RickBradford]

And that's bye-bye from 40,000 people -- until they get to do the same charade all over again next year in some agreeable venue. This is one gravy train nobody wants to get off.

I believe Marrakech in Morocco was originally chosen for next year's ritual, but that's looking increasingly unlikely with the terrorist unrest, so don't be surprised if they move it to somewhere more secure, like Tahiti, or Gstaad.

Upset you weren't invited? Never mind. There is always a chance for next year.

Not in the slightest.I have better things to do with my time.

Frankly, if we really faced a climate catastrophe and had to rely on the UN to save us, we’d all be doomed. None of the UN proposals to “solve” climate change will have any measurable impact on temperatures, rainfall, droughts or storminess, even if you accepted their scientific claims.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.

[Pimay1]

This quote from the founder of Greenpeace Dr. Patrick Moore 2015 Annual GWPF Lecture Institute of Mechanical Engineers, London 14 October 2015

From direct observation we already know that the extreme predictions of CO2’s impact on global temperature are highly unlikely given that about one-third of all our CO2 emissions have been discharged during the past 18 years and there has been no statistically significant warming.

Earlier this year the leaders of the G7 countries agreed that fossil fuels should be phased out by 2100, a most bizarre development to say the least. Of course no intelligent person really believes this will happen but it is a testament to the power of the elites that have converged around the catastrophic human-caused climate change that so many alleged world leaders must participate in the charade. How might we convince them to celebrate CO2 rather than to denigrate it?

..and what is your point?

The point is that the father of the global warming movement sees what the climate change scam has turned into. He also made the statement that the COP21 meeting in Paris was bullshit. I'm sure he knows more about it than any of us here on TV.

"the father of the global warming movement"

lol where on Earth did you get that statement from? Patrick Moore is one of the most discredited Climate Deniers and has been for many many years. When it comes to the science on GW / CC Moore wouldn't know 'his ass from his elbow'.

Greenpeace Statement on Patrick Moore:

"Patrick Moore promotes such anti-environmental positions as clearcut logging, nuclear power, farmed salmon, PVC (vinyl) production, genetically engineered crops, and mining. Clients for his consulting services are a veritable Who’s Who of companies that Greenpeace has exposed for environmental misdeeds, including Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, and BHP Minerals."

Greenpeace Facts On Patrick Moore Here

Of course Greenpeace has turned against Patrick Moore and tries to discredit him because he, as I said before has realized that climate change has turned into a total scam.

[RickBradford]

Greenpeace Facts On Patrick Moore Here

Good old Greenpeace. Their opinions are facts, while everyone else's facts are just opinions.

The only thing worse than the UN being the guardians of the climate would be having the self-righteous, moralistic twerps at Greenpeace in charge of things.

[up2u2]

Greenpeace Facts On Patrick Moore Here

Good old Greenpeace. Their opinions are facts, while everyone else's facts are just opinions.

The only thing worse than the UN being the guardians of the climate would be having the self-righteous, moralistic twerps at Greenpeace in charge of things.

Patrick Moore's opinions are simply not based on scientific evidence. As far back as 2012 in an article he wrote in the conservative rag The Washington Times he proved to be way off the mark when his opinions were measured against the science here. It is obvious he does not have a very good understanding of GW / CC so any opinion he has on COP21 is irrelevant.

I am not a member of Greenpeace. They bring an interesting perspective to issues. I would agree with most but not all. I expect if there were any real question of the veracity of some of the allegations they have made towards Moore he hasn't begun legal action.

To describe Moore as the "the father of the Global Warming movement" is laughable. The Father of Greenhouse Gas and Global Warming would have to be Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius who in 1896 (119 years ago) theorised that doubling of CO₂ would effect Earth's climate. It was thought at the time that the Oceans were such a massive 'heat sink' it was unlikely climate could be effected. How right Arrhenius turned out to be. The Father of Climate Change would have to be attributed to Manabe and Wetherald 1967 (48 years ago) who first accurately Modelled the effects of doubling CO₂ levels. Manabe and Wetherald's seminal Paper is the most cited Paper in the scientific field of Climate Change.

Patrick Moore wouldn't know his ass from his elbow when it comes to GW / CC.

[cumgranosalum]

One opinion though however constant, no matter how much it is put forward will NEVER EVER be accepted by the scientific community, the international community and now th political community, is that of RickBradford.

So we can all take comfort in the knowledge that no matter how much he huffs and puffs the acceptance of climate change will never fall down.