Historic pact to slow global warming is celebrated in Paris

[up2u2]

Climate misinformer Pielke calls it quits? Good!

When a person makes the statements he does that seriously conflict with the scientific evidence it gets to the point of scientific fraud and yes these people have to be shown the door.

Here is a litany of absolute drivel that Pielke blobs on about when he knows the science simply does not support his view, not even slightly.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roger_Pielke_Sr.htm

If you read through what the science says on the propaganda Pielke preaches you would show him the door as well.

Pielke Jnr hasn't fallen far from the 'tree' either.

Good riddance.

[sirineou]

I did not attempt to correct anyone's grammar

the sentence is "Pollution and "Climate Change" are not synonymous; pollution is man-made (and horrific)."

in which he says and I agree, pollution and climate change are not synonymous.

pollution is manmade, again I agree and is horrific , again I agree,

But then he stops there , and that's why it is a incomplete sentence for it to be complete there must be an, And climate change is.............

And the alternative to man made is?

are yo saying climate change can not be man made?

Just helping you with your comprehension skills.

charity begins at home

[buji]

Another attempt for the French trying to get noticed in the world. Will put the story in my coupon drawer.

[sirineou]

Another attempt for the French trying to get noticed in the world. Will put the story in my coupon drawer.

Two hundred nations gathered in Paris and negotiated an agreement that could have a great impact on their economic development in a vain attempt o get the French noticed in the world .

[RickBradford]

Climate misinformer Pielke calls it quits? Good!

When a person makes the statements he does that seriously conflict with the scientific evidence it gets to the point of scientific fraud and yes these people have to be shown the door.

Here is a litany of absolute drivel that Pielke blobs on about when he knows the science simply does not support his view, not even slightly.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roger_Pielke_Sr.htm

If you read through what the science says on the propaganda Pielke preaches you would show him the door as well.

Pielke Jnr hasn't fallen far from the 'tree' either.

Good riddance.

I can certainly agree with you that 'Skeptical Science' is a litany of drivel -- it reads like a combination of the Toytown Book of Rubbish and the Quran. It's The Chipmunks version of climate science.

But it hardly needs their confirmation that Pielke is a very well-credentialled and award-winning scientist, who, incidentally, accepts the mainstream IPCC view of global warming. Compared to the pygmies who inhabit Skeptical Science, Pielke is a giant.

Edited December 24, 2015 by RickBradford

[up2u2]

Climate misinformer Pielke calls it quits? Good!

When a person makes the statements he does that seriously conflict with the scientific evidence it gets to the point of scientific fraud and yes these people have to be shown the door.

Here is a litany of absolute drivel that Pielke blobs on about when he knows the science simply does not support his view, not even slightly.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roger_Pielke_Sr.htm

If you read through what the science says on the propaganda Pielke preaches you would show him the door as well.

Pielke Jnr hasn't fallen far from the 'tree' either.

Good riddance.

I can certainly agree with you that 'Skeptical Science' is a litany of drivel -- it reads like a combination of the Toytown Book of Rubbish and the Quran.

But it hardly needs their confirmation that Pielke is a very well-credentialled and award-winning scientist, who, incidentally, accepts the mainstream IPCC view of global warming. Compared to the pygmies who inhabit Skeptical Science, Pielke is a giant.

Dream on RB Skeptical Science relies on the science to discredit Pielke's drivel. Pielke is an embarrassment and he walked before he was pushed. Good science is rewarded, scientific fraud gets shown the door no matter who you think you are. Just another Climate Denier fraudster thrown on the scientific scrap heap. Good riddance to Pielke Snr and Jnr. He's a stupid old fool.

[RickBradford]

Oh, please. SkS is just a bunch of kidz running around in funny uniforms, desperately virtue signalling one another and the dim bulbs who take it all in, wide-eyed.

Pages and pages of repetitive climate-cliché bingo don't make a scientific site.

[up2u2]

Oh, please. SkS is just a bunch of kidz running around in funny uniforms, desperately virtue signalling one another and the dim bulbs who take it all in, wide-eyed.

Pages and pages of repetitive climate-cliché bingo don't make a scientific site.

Climate Deniers hate the site with a passion and for good reason. When people are educated on the science it is impossible to mislead them. There is never a position taken on Skeptical Science that does not contain a link to the science that underpins the position. You thought you could play the 'victim card' with Pielke Snr being the poor victim cast out but a quick look at Skeptical Science and it is clear he was just an old fool with the science clearly demonstrating the facts. Nice try RB. You may fool the ill-informed but that is about all. Carbon Brief is another good science based site for information on GW / CC.

[RickBradford]

^^^

Well, if you really have swallowed all the balloon juice which passes for content at SkS Kidz, it certainly explains a lot of your posts.

[sirineou]

^^^

Well, if you really have swallowed all the balloon juice which passes for content at SkS Kidz, it certainly explains a lot of your posts.

could you please point out some of that "balloon juice" and explain how it is "balloon juice"

[up2u2]

^^^

Well, if you really have swallowed all the balloon juice which passes for content at SkS Kidz, it certainly explains a lot of your posts.

Skeptical Science is a good site for scientific facts on GW / CC. Before you post your misinformation you should research the facts on Skeptical Science before you attempt to mislead people. You got caught out on making out Pielke was some kind of victim when it is clear he is just an old fool. If you had of run it by Skeptical Science you would have known that.

[RickBradford]

^^^

Well, if you really have swallowed all the balloon juice which passes for content at SkS Kidz, it certainly explains a lot of your posts.

could you please point out some of that "balloon juice" and explain how it is "balloon juice"

Just read the guy's posts. I've wasted enough time on this already.

[thaibeachlovers]

Nice attempt at a grammar rebuttal but his sentence does make sense.

I did not attempt to correct anyone's grammar

the sentence is "Pollution and "Climate Change" are not synonymous; pollution is man-made (and horrific)."

in which he says and I agree, pollution and climate change are not synonymous.

pollution is manmade, again I agree and is horrific , again I agree,

But then he stops there , and that's why it is a incomplete sentence for it to be complete there must be an, And climate change is.............

And the alternative to man made is?

are yo saying climate change can not be man made?

More to the point, can climate change be caused by man, and if it has been, can it be changed to something else by imposing taxes ( which is generally what the politicians want to do, rather than taking any real action ), and if it can be changed at all, can it be done while large polluters like China, Japan and India opt out?

[sirineou]

^^^

Well, if you really have swallowed all the balloon juice which passes for content at SkS Kidz, it certainly explains a lot of your posts.

could you please point out some of that "balloon juice" and explain how it is "balloon juice"

Just read the guy's posts. I've wasted enough time on this already.

Unless you say , this is "balloon juice , and this is why I think it is "balloon juice", You are simply engaging in schoolyard name calling

You might as well have said Buh humbug

[RickBradford]

^^^

Well, if you really have swallowed all the balloon juice which passes for content at SkS Kidz, it certainly explains a lot of your posts.

could you please point out some of that "balloon juice" and explain how it is "balloon juice"

Just read the guy's posts. I've wasted enough time on this already.

Unless you say , this is "balloon juice , and this is why I think it is "balloon juice", You are simply engaging in schoolyard name calling

You might as well have said Buh humbug

No, I'm asking you to do your own research. This thread has now drifted to the topic of Roger Pielke Jr, and there are many sources where you can get information on this guy and decide for yourself.

If you are interested enough to do research, then it's probably better to check with a range of sources, rather than just a single website like SkS Kidz, run by juvenile cosplay fetishists.

[buji]

Christ! This still going on, it's the French...who cares! The world is & will go on. 5% (which is high) of the world changing (giving in to corporations) will do nothing except feed the rich!

[buji]

Meant "high" guess, more like 2-3%

[arjunadawn]

"Climate Change" is political ideology not science. "Climate Change" is an economic model based on redistribution, apportionment, and bills of attainder. "Climate Change" has its own religious component under the guise of ecumenicism. "Climate Change" is a liberation theology based entirely upon breaking the bonds that tie people to nations, regions, economics, religion, the tribal, and other ideology; fear is the solvent.The arrogance of those who trumpet this nonsense is only matched by the ignorance of those who buy it.

Pollution and "Climate Change" are not synonymous; pollution is man-made (and horrific).

somebody has being reading the dictionary

PS: your last sentence is incomplete, do you mind completing it?

1. Do you assert reading the dictionary is a negative?

2. Does any here really think I craft my posts by flipping through a dictionary or thesaurus? I doubt most agree with you.

I suggest polysylabism confounds you.

3. The last sentence is complete; sound it out slowly.

4. The OP is not about me. Stay focused, slow down, and drink less eggnog. I wish you a happy holiday.

[arjunadawn]

Nice attempt at a grammar rebuttal but his sentence does make sense.

I did not attempt to correct anyone's grammar

the sentence is "Pollution and "Climate Change" are not synonymous; pollution is man-made (and horrific)."

in which he says and I agree, pollution and climate change are not synonymous.

pollution is manmade, again I agree and is horrific , again I agree,

But then he stops there , and that's why it is a incomplete sentence for it to be complete there must be an, And climate change is.............

I've no duty to compare. The contrast is made simply by what is not. This is enough and you seem to be the only one who is befuddled.

[arjunadawn]

"Climate Change" is political ideology not science. "Climate Change" is an economic model based on redistribution, apportionment, and bills of attainder. "Climate Change" has its own religious component under the guise of ecumenicism. "Climate Change" is a liberation theology based entirely upon breaking the bonds that tie people to nations, regions, economics, religion, the tribal, and other ideology; fear is the solvent.The arrogance of those who trumpet this nonsense is only matched by the ignorance of those who buy it.

Pollution and "Climate Change" are not synonymous; pollution is man-made (and horrific).

somebody has being reading the dictionary

PS: your last sentence is incomplete, do you mind completing it?

More like someone swallowed a dictionary. arjunadawn posts are so convoluted with acrobatic prose his point becomes lost, confused and contradictory. Why use one word when you can use 20, seems to be his approach. Over 196 leaders of nations disagree with his view. They simply accept the science.

His totally wrong anyway. Global Warming / Climate Change is purely scientifically based with evidence to underpin it's research. Religion is based on a belief with no evidence to underpin it. His last statement is gobbledegook as well . In that, burning of Fossil Fuels produces man made CO₂ at a level that becomes a pollutant causing Global Warming and adverse Climate Change. So yes Pollution (CO₂) and Climate Change are synonymous.

Were I equally intimated by base prose and commented on it, my post would look very similar to yours. However, the OP is not about me, or you. That you race to respond and make it about me says more about the vacancy of your thought than my prose. It has long been known the UN and its subordinate organs, organizations, etc., are really no more than a collective to setup a socialist economic order. When the cries of so many nations are built entirely around not the substance of their gathering but the means of their being bought off you can rest assured the alleged reason is pretense- "Climate Change." Does one think it is really difficult to get any nation to agree the climate is changing by man when a hand is outstretched with billions of dollars in it. Look closely. Climate Change is a falsity fabricated to offer the solution. The solution was crafted long before the problem- climate change- was peddled. Fools and ill informed swallow this terrible pill.

[arjunadawn]

I commend the passion and zeal of those who want to take action to conserve and preserve the environment. You condemn them.

Quite wrong. I fully support people who stand up for the protection and preservation of the environment.

But the fact is, UN climate policy has nothing to do with the environment, as senior UN officials have publicly stated. In 2010, , , co-chair of a UN IPCC working group, was asked precisely that question in an interview. He replied:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

Earlier this year, Christina 'Tinkerbell' Figueres, executive secretary of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of the UN is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to undermine and reverse capitalism.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution."

As I have said before, anyone who truly believes the world is at risk from global warming should feel profoundly betrayed by the Paris talks, which have given nations carte blanche to do as much or as little as they want to counter the "problem" of global warming.

Very well. I accept your argument on the ideological, non-scientific agenda of some officials involved in the Climate Change issue. I do not yet accept that the objectives stated by the two officials you quoted are formally approved policy objectives. You are probably more aware of the governance structure of the IPCC process than I, but normally the Terms of Reference for working groups and committees will have the objectives clearly defined and detailed. The ideological views of some officials are not automatically an organisation's policy until such policy has been approved and adopted.

Having said that, if your argument is against the economic ideology that you perceive in the Climate Change agenda, why do you not argue those points specifically. Merely posting extreme, incendiary or even mildly controversial statements from people as a means to discredit an agenda is insufficient. What is wrong with the ideals and sentiments in these two quotes? Do you deny that the economic development model centred on industrialisation from an agrarian model is not damaging to the environment? Are there not lessons to be learned from the experience of developed countries that have been through this process; a process whose consequences are being seen in Beijing now? Is not the experience of post-industrial societies also informative for the developing world?

As for the idea of wealth re-distribution, Edenhofer is a German economist. The quote gives no indication of his ideology on this matter. Until that is established, then the context for his statement is questionable. I don't feel like reading up on German economists today so I will take the statement at face value.

So then lets argue the points. I had the good fortune to help organise and listen to a seminar conducted by the Peruvian economist, Hernan de Soto talking about his views on capital http://www.amazon.com/The-Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Everywhere/dp/0465016154 and I believe he accurately identifies those elements that have made economies based on capital economically successful. Nothing really socialistic about this. More about governance, fairness and the administration of law. However there is also a lot of interest in the sociology of capitalism. With the failures of societies based on Maxist-Leninist principles to deal with inherent sociological flaws, there is still a strong interest in dealing with these aspects of capitalism, in particular the income inequality gap. The book by PIcketty http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/05/economist-explains has become very popular because it is one of the first of a new generation of thinking about these issues.

So I will accept that the 'informed Denier' is actually arguing against economic socialism even though I do not accept that economic socialism is the official objective of the Climate Change agenda but I think the Deniers should start arguing these issues and not boring us to death with endless nitpicking about CO2 and all the damned weather charts. If this is an economic argument, then fine. Let's discuss it on this basis. And leave the scientists to do their work on assessing the impact of humans on the environment and developing technologies to mitigate this as a worthwhile end in itself to conserve resources for future generations.

Wow. Great post. Thank you.

[arjunadawn]

"Climate Change" is political ideology not science. "Climate Change" is an economic model based on redistribution, apportionment, and bills of attainder. "Climate Change" has its own religious component under the guise of ecumenicism. "Climate Change" is a liberation theology based entirely upon breaking the bonds that tie people to nations, regions, economics, religion, the tribal, and other ideology; fear is the solvent.The arrogance of those who trumpet this nonsense is only matched by the ignorance of those who buy it.

Pollution and "Climate Change" are not synonymous; pollution is man-made (and horrific).

Ecumenism is not about non-religiousness or about alternative 'religiosity'. It is about universality and multilateralism. Further liberation theology emerged as a consequence of US foreign policy in Latin America and the support of strong men whose violations of human rights are notorious and on record even though many of these criminals escaped justice. Merely using words out of context to be hyperbolic fosters disdain and demonstrates a hollowness of rationality.

I accept that the economic ideology of Climate Change is not synonymous with Pollution. Do you accept that arguing the costs and benefits of different socio-economic systems is more effective on its own merits rather than in the context of climate data, attacks on scientists and their processes or the hurling of wild hyperbole. Do we now take the next step of literal burnings at the stake for dissenters from your orthodoxy?

I guess though, this new theology has significant implications for the old stick in the muds and the way they live their lives.

Even though we arrive at different places regarding this it is so refreshing to read your posts.

There are endless roads in which to discuss such a thing and one could get lost shoveling data to assert this or that; both ways. The fact is, I no longer need to get lost in the weeds of exploring its data points. Perhaps this is blind but simply standing back and watching who is peddling "Climate Change" now tells me all I need to know. All my previous observations are confirmed by noting the various other policies Climate Change advocates peddle- a thing can be known by its substance. Of course climate change is a stalking horse. It does not even matter any longer whether climate change is man made. The entire process is now entirely purchased by leftist/socialist doctrine. Were climate change really caused by man it would still be anathema to join the current "Climate Change" movement as it is basically a wooden horse wholly owned by leftists and bankers.

[RickBradford]

So I will accept that the 'informed Denier' is actually arguing against economic socialism even though I do not accept that economic socialism is the official objective of the Climate Change agenda but I think the Deniers should start arguing these issues and not boring us to death with endless nitpicking about CO2 and all the damned weather charts. If this is an economic argument, then fine. Let's discuss it on this basis.

Perhaps if you stopped throwing around terms like "Denier", with its deliberate and unpleasant Holocaust allusions, then a discussion might be possible. But it seems as though that would be too wrenching for you.

[arjunadawn]

So I will accept that the 'informed Denier' is actually arguing against economic socialism even though I do not accept that economic socialism is the official objective of the Climate Change agenda but I think the Deniers should start arguing these issues and not boring us to death with endless nitpicking about CO2 and all the damned weather charts. If this is an economic argument, then fine. Let's discuss it on this basis.

Perhaps if you stopped throwing around terms like "Denier", with its deliberate and unpleasant Holocaust allusions, then a discussion might be possible. But it seems as though that would be too wrenching for you.

This was one of the less emotive posts and I applaud it but yes, "denier" is a pejorative. Pejoratives are woven into the fabric of insurgent ideologies as a tool of assault. Pejorative, innuendo, and repetition of personal attacks like 'racist, islamophobe, denier' etc. are designed to render the opponent disarmed as if some disqualification is obtained by stating such a thing. Many do not even know they do it as it is so widely dispersed across the liberal media. It is the basest form of war- to demonize your opponent and remove his humanity.

The "Climate Change" fantasy is an integral component of other seemingly unrelated diplomatic tools/agreements. Look to see trade partnerships and regional treaties and organizations subsumed into the "Climate Change" fantasy. The are all concurrent products to be woven into the same fold later. Doubt it? Watch. It'll only be a few years. If any thinks proponents of "Climate Change" are stumbling in the dark and ad lib their next step as they go they are greatly mistaken. It is an inexorable march.

[Scott]

An inflammatory post has been removed. Continued disrespectful, baiting posts will result in a suspension.

[Andreas2]

Only for people who are interested in developments which are hardly or not at all reported by the MSM.

Judicial Watch Sues for Documents Withheld From Congress in New Climate Data Scandal

Excerpt:

NOAA collects data in thousands of ways – from temperature gauges on land and buoys at sea, to satellites orbiting Earth. Considered the “environmental intelligence agency,” NOAA is the nation’s leading collector of climate data. In July, Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) asked NOAA for both data and internal communications related to a controversial climate change study. After the agency refused to comply with the document request, Smith’s committee issued a subpoena on October 13. According to the Science, Space, and Technology Committee:

In June, NOAA widely publicized a study as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in climate change. After three letters requesting all communications from the agency surrounding the role of political appointees in the agency’s scientific process, Chairman Smith issued a subpoena for the information. Smith subsequently sent a letter on December 1st offering to accept documents and communications from NOAA political, policy and non-scientific staff as a first step in satisfying the subpoena requirements.

Information provided to the Committee by whistleblowers appears to show that the study was rushed to publication despite the concerns and objections of a number of NOAA employees.

How can it be, that a scientific agency, financed with tax money and being the (intellectual) leading voice behind the man made global warming theory, does not want to show how they came to their conclusions?

Usually most serious scientists are more than interested to have their research peer-reviewed and approved - Especially if the evidence is so clear and meanwhile "common knowledge". Strange.

My prediction: Within the next 2 - 3 years the global temperature will officially start to decrease - And the politicians will sell this to us as a prove that wealth redistribution is good for the climate.

And if NOAA has to open their books, we will learn that the decrease has already started... Or there has for years not been a significant increase in temperatures at all. Let's see.

Anyway, the good news is, that at least the polar bears are still here - Do you remember that dramatic fairy tale? Or did this also already go down the memory hole like the "global cooling" and the "ozone hole"?

The Ozone Scare Was A Dry Run For The Global Warming Scare

[up2u2]

"Climate Change" is political ideology not science. "Climate Change" is an economic model based on redistribution, apportionment, and bills of attainder. "Climate Change" has its own religious component under the guise of ecumenicism. "Climate Change" is a liberation theology based entirely upon breaking the bonds that tie people to nations, regions, economics, religion, the tribal, and other ideology; fear is the solvent.The arrogance of those who trumpet this nonsense is only matched by the ignorance of those who buy it.

Pollution and "Climate Change" are not synonymous; pollution is man-made (and horrific).

somebody has being reading the dictionary

PS: your last sentence is incomplete, do you mind completing it?

More like someone swallowed a dictionary. arjunadawn posts are so convoluted with acrobatic prose his point becomes lost, confused and contradictory. Why use one word when you can use 20, seems to be his approach. Over 196 leaders of nations disagree with his view. They simply accept the science.

His totally wrong anyway. Global Warming / Climate Change is purely scientifically based with evidence to underpin it's research. Religion is based on a belief with no evidence to underpin it. His last statement is gobbledegook as well . In that, burning of Fossil Fuels produces man made CO₂ at a level that becomes a pollutant causing Global Warming and adverse Climate Change. So yes Pollution (CO₂) and Climate Change are synonymous.

Were I equally intimated by base prose and commented on it, my post would look very similar to yours. However, the OP is not about me, or you. That you race to respond and make it about me says more about the vacancy of your thought than my prose. It has long been known the UN and its subordinate organs, organizations, etc., are really no more than a collective to setup a socialist economic order. When the cries of so many nations are built entirely around not the substance of their gathering but the means of their being bought off you can rest assured the alleged reason is pretense- "Climate Change." Does one think it is really difficult to get any nation to agree the climate is changing by man when a hand is outstretched with billions of dollars in it. Look closely. Climate Change is a falsity fabricated to offer the solution. The solution was crafted long before the problem- climate change- was peddled. Fools and ill informed swallow this terrible pill.

So many words to say so little of substance. Most of which fails to make any clear point. "It is all a big conspiracy" really isn't getting any traction due to the absence of any evidence.

[arjunadawn]

There is no conspiracy in ClimateChangism; it is self evidently a veneer for tried and failed ideologies. For one (up2you) who is so irritated by my posts you respond enough. Better to stick to the talking points; this will not betray frustration.

[up2u2]

There is no conspiracy in ClimateChangism; it is self evidently a veneer for tried and failed ideologies. For one (up2you) who is so irritated by my posts you respond enough. Better to stick to the talking points; this will not betray frustration.

Not frustrated in the slightest. When all you have is GW / CC is all a big socialist ideological conspiracy you don't really have much to add to the debate. The science is unequivocal, the scientific consensus is overwhelming, Global Warming requires a Global response and a scientific and economic response to manage a positive well thought out plan of action.

If you are just going to sit on the sidelines shouting it's all a big leftist conspiracy to take over the world you really are not part of the solution. COP21 showed the world has actually passed you by.

[thaibeachlovers]

Quote function is not working, but to reply to #209, when some of your respected scientists are claiming that disaster is upon us WHY has the conference said there is till 2100 to act? Surely it would be necessary to act NOW.

I am still waiting for someone, anyone, to inform us as to exactly WHAT action is to be taken to reverse GW. So far there is zilch, nada, nothing, just a lot of words.

Given that they have not resolved to not fly to the next conference I have no faith in their integrity or their commitment to do anything meaningful.