Historic pact to slow global warming is celebrated in Paris

[sirineou]

Last I checked we were not in the dark ages,

I wish I could say the same for the Flat earth society that insists unlocking the carbon sequestered by fossil fuels is not a significant contributor to global warming

"Science in its purest application tells no lies. But humans do. "

do you then claim that Those in the focill industry and the "man in the street are not human?

Everyone lies.

But big Green is heavily reliant on hype and propaganda. Whereas Big oil is reliant upon supply and demand.

"Big oil is reliant upon supply and demand. "

Yes but if everyone understood the dangers to climate change from the release of all the co2 sequestered in fossil fuels wouldn't that affect demand? and as you said............

[canuckamuck]

Last I checked we were not in the dark ages,

I wish I could say the same for the Flat earth society that insists unlocking the carbon sequestered by fossil fuels is not a significant contributor to global warming

"Science in its purest application tells no lies. But humans do. "

do you then claim that Those in the focill industry and the "man in the street are not human?

Everyone lies.

But big Green is heavily reliant on hype and propaganda. Whereas Big oil is reliant upon supply and demand.

"Big oil is reliant upon supply and demand. "

Yes but if everyone understood the dangers to climate change from the release of all the co2 sequestered in fossil fuels wouldn't that affect demand? and as you said............

You mean if everyone thought the way they were told to think it would change demand. I don't know.

But they have yet to prove the danger of CO2. Double the CO2 in the environment and we would have an abundance of food because of the increased plant growth. If the temperature went up a couple of degrees we would have more farm land.This much is true. The down sides are not so easily proven.

[sirineou]

Last I checked we were not in the dark ages,

I wish I could say the same for the Flat earth society that insists unlocking the carbon sequestered by fossil fuels is not a significant contributor to global warming

"Science in its purest application tells no lies. But humans do. "

do you then claim that Those in the focill industry and the "man in the street are not human?

Everyone lies.

But big Green is heavily reliant on hype and propaganda. Whereas Big oil is reliant upon supply and demand.

"Big oil is reliant upon supply and demand. "

Yes but if everyone understood the dangers to climate change from the release of all the co2 sequestered in fossil fuels wouldn't that affect demand? and as you said............

You mean if everyone thought the way they were told to think it would change demand. I don't know.

But they have yet to prove the danger of CO2. Double the CO2 in the environment and we would have an abundance of food because of the increased plant growth. If the temperature went up a couple of degrees we would have more farm land.This much is true. The down sides are not so easily proven.

"You mean if everyone thought the way they were told to think it would change demand"

Yes exactly

PS: Manure is also tree food

[canuckamuck]

Is that what you support then? Telling people how to think, over letting people come to their own conclusions. Do you think as you are told to think?

[sirineou]

Is that what you support then? Telling people how to think, over letting people come to their own conclusions. Do you think as you are told to think?

My answer above was glib and you don't deserve that, please allow me to expand.

Dont you think that if people were convinced that a product was dangerous, it would affect demand??

If not by diminished use, then by the use of alternate products.

This answer goes toward your assertion that "Big oil don't lie"

If indeed as you said they rely on demand then they have a vested interest in convincing you that their product is safe,

They have a much much greater reason to lie than scientist do,

even if they provide enough confusion to postpone implementation of alternative energy by a few years it will extend their profits by that length of time

[up2u2]

If you are interested to learn about the actual scientific facts on GW / CC there is a very good site called Skeptical Science that starts with the Basics and depending your educational background you can step up to Intermediate or Advanced.

"Skeptical Science" is to climate science what SpongeBob SquarePants is to marine biology.

But really it doesn't matter what any website says about the science, because the world's politicians have just unanimously decided to do nothing about the "problem" of "global warming".

Every country has the right to do what it wants in terms of CO2 emissions, and the UN has enshrined that in law with the Paris Declaration.

Game over.

For Climate Deniers it is toxic and they wont read it. For people who have an open mind and are interested in learning about the science on the GW / CC issue it is an invaluable source of information. As the people involved are actually scientists working in the field of Climate Science they are able to access the key scientists that are involved in ground breaking research at the highest level and speak with them personally. A lot of really good information and discussion on COP21.

The two most important points on COP21 is the Climate Denier bloggasphere had no impact with misinformation on GW / CC. People have stopped listening to them. Nearly 200 countries accepted the danger of burning Fossil Fuels unanimously and to take action.

I think the main reason Climate Deniers aren't having any impact is they are just running the same old misinformation.

[Linzz]

Up2u I guess

Edited December 20, 2015 by Linzz

[Linzz]

According a source untainted by the global warming/climate change crowd, the U.S. Geological Society said:

An estimated 1.5 million metric tons of sulfur dioxide gas was discharged by Mount St. Helens during the explosive eruption of 18 May 1980. Thus, approximately 2 million metric tons of sulfur dioxide was released during the whole eruption sequence.

Consequently, there are two problems with the data. Even the EPA admits it cannot accurately attribute how much greenhouse gas is naturally created vs. manmade. Consider the massive release of sulfur dioxide that occurred following the eruption of Mount St. Helens combined with the likely gas eruption before and after five years on either side of the eruption. If we consider these factors, then Reagan’s “suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving” appears to be fairly accurate.

It appears that we would enter a White Earth Effect and die as a planet if the volcanic activity ceased. That is the source of warming up the planet again when the sun turns down. Sure, man may add to volatility, but we by no means possess the power to change the climate cycle. There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO proof that the long-term 300-year cycle has changed. People who believe this nonsense should not read this blog for they must also be a deep-rooted Marxist who believes all the BS of governments. If you buy into that, you might as well buy into everything they say. Only an idiot can possibly think we have the capacity to alter the universe or how it functions. We are incapable of even grasping all the variables at play.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/37141

[canuckamuck]

Is that what you support then? Telling people how to think, over letting people come to their own conclusions. Do you think as you are told to think?

My answer above was glib and you don't deserve that, please allow me to expand.

Dont you think that if people were convinced that a product was dangerous, it would affect demand??

If not by diminished use, then by the use of alternate products.

This answer goes toward your assertion that "Big oil don't lie"

If indeed as you said they rely on demand then they have a vested interest in convincing you that their product is safe,

They have a much much greater reason to lie than scientist do,

even if they provide enough confusion to postpone implementation of alternative energy by a few years it will extend their profits by that length of time

Words in my mouth. I never said big oil doesn't lie. But I implied that their income originates from supplying an actual product. Whereas Big Green supplies fear, and bogeymen and is paid very well for it. Their business is spin, whereas for big oil it is only a sideline.

[RickBradford]

The two most important points on COP21 is the Climate Denier bloggasphere had no impact with misinformation on GW / CC. People have stopped listening to them.

You seem unable to grasp the simple fact that COP21 was not about the question "Do you believe in Global Warming?" In the political sphere, that question has been answered "Yes" for almost 20 years.

The question at COP21 was "Are you going to do anything about Global Warming?". The answer to that was an emphatic "No" as can be seen quite easily by looking at each country's official INDC (Intended Nationally Determined Contribution).

These have been helpfully collated at a Green-tinged website called Climate Action Tracker, where the word "inadequate" is prominently displayed alongside country names.

Link: http://climateactiontracker.org/

Edited December 20, 2015 by RickBradford

[Linzz]

The hard core rusted on Climate Deniers can cling to that little glimmer of hope that nothing will be done on GW / CC. The science has now moved on. The Climate Denial had no impact on the conference and the politics has moved on also.

What finally beat the Deniers is the people actually seeing the changes in Climates around the world and the extreme weather events beginning to occur and the Climate Denier 'echo chamber' became just plain foolish. Also politicians become aware of the cost of doing nothing when they looked at the bill for just a slight increase in extreme weather events. Another key driver is politicians now understand that there is great wealth and new tech industries and jobs in Clean Energy.

Also the majority of people are much more educated on the issue so it is becoming more difficult for Deniers to fool people. They just simply know that the Deniers pseudo science is clap trap and tend to ignore it and they know it is being generated from the Fossil Fuel industry.

A scientific consensus on GW / CC and now with a unanimous agreement a political consensus on GW / CC.

Happy days

The so called deniers are not denying anything about true climate change, they are just fed up with the exaggerations being proffered in the attempt to jusify the untruths that are being used in an attempt to scare people into being believers. Anyone who thinks rationally knows that pollution exists, that it isn't CO2 but whaat does exist should be curtailed but nothing will happen through wealth redistribution, except that more corrupt politicians and scammers will get their snouts in the trough. But according to the believers, money changing hands can control mother nature and alter tempertures. Please show me how and do not resort to the climate change bible that so many of you turn to in times of need.

Answer this please. If scientists, not associated with the believers, are unable to predict weather occurrences, with accuracy, two or three weeks in advance, how are those on the believers side able to predict what will occur in 20, 30 or 50 years time. I know,Super Scientists paid by those who need to have this scaremongering continue. I won't be around when these so called predictions allegedly come to fruition, neither will most on here. Is it because they do so as one will never know and they cannot bre called to task for their BS predictions. The many lies put out by the so called professor Tim Flanery, the Australian Climate Change Commissioner and the billions of dollars he has cost the taxpayers should be enough to see him hung, drawn and quarted but no, this liar just goes o to make millions more through out and falsehoods.

So there is the scientific consensus and an unanimous agreement, really? Another line from the book of exaggerations that is being used to justify the alarmists point of view. So the views of over 1000 dissenting sceintists have no relevance to the debate and, according to some, is only propoganda from the fossil fuel industry that is being used to justify their argument. So what is the so called evidence presented by the alarmists called, the gospel as spoken by Al Gore, his climate crediting huckstering partner, David Blood, formerly of Goldman Sachs and the Canadian Billionaire, Jeffrey Skolls. And I suppose the other billionaires are now getting involved because they too believe the hype. I'd say they have looked at this as new way of adding to their bottom line, while all the suckers pay. Remember, they didn't get rich by giving things away, not unless there was a huge return in the offering.

So it's happy days is it, I'd suggest that you and the others stop hyperventilating, just think of the amount of CO2 you contibuting in doing so. Oh but wait, if you pay your dollar to erase your carbon footprint, then everything is ok. Now, before you escalate your joy into a full state of euphoria just sit back, take a deep breath and remember that this agreement is not legally binding unless joined by a minimum of 55 countries that allegedly represent 55 percent of green house gas emissions. Such parties will need to sign the agreement in New York between 22 April 2016 and 21 April 2017, and also adopt it within their own legal systems.

Let's all wait and see, there is over 2 years before you can even imagine gloating so don't jump the gun bu thent given their past records, there will be further talkfests, a lot more hot air and for what, so a few selected will benefit while plebs like you will be short changed in order to fill their coffers. Happy days for who, not you, I can assure you of that.

"So the views of over 1000 dissenting sceintists (sic) have no relevance to the debate......"

Compared to 33,330 scientists that confirm Anthropogenic Global Warming. Correct the 1000 are not relevant. The consensus is too high. Case dismissed.

Happy days.

97%? Happy days are you a scientist? I'm not so I'm not as categorical as you. I listen to you but I think you have made up your mind and it is now closed because you are so dismissive of anyone that does not agree with you.

[Linzz]

[Si Thea01]

A lot more research on consensus after that earlier one. The accepted scientific consensus now is 99.9994%. So really the so called 1000 dissenting scientists are up against 166M scientists who confirm Anthropogenic Global Warming.

I think the 'ayes' have it.

Blatant false and misleading data. 166M Scientists, who are you kidding.

[stevenl]

The hard core rusted on Climate Deniers can cling to that little glimmer of hope that nothing will be done on GW / CC. The science has now moved on. The Climate Denial had no impact on the conference and the politics has moved on also.

What finally beat the Deniers is the people actually seeing the changes in Climates around the world and the extreme weather events beginning to occur and the Climate Denier 'echo chamber' became just plain foolish. Also politicians become aware of the cost of doing nothing when they looked at the bill for just a slight increase in extreme weather events. Another key driver is politicians now understand that there is great wealth and new tech industries and jobs in Clean Energy.

Also the majority of people are much more educated on the issue so it is becoming more difficult for Deniers to fool people. They just simply know that the Deniers pseudo science is clap trap and tend to ignore it and they know it is being generated from the Fossil Fuel industry.

A scientific consensus on GW / CC and now with a unanimous agreement a political consensus on GW / CC.

Happy days

The so called deniers are not denying anything about true climate change, they are just fed up with the exaggerations being proffered in the attempt to jusify the untruths that are being used in an attempt to scare people into being believers. Anyone who thinks rationally knows that pollution exists, that it isn't CO2 but whaat does exist should be curtailed but nothing will happen through wealth redistribution, except that more corrupt politicians and scammers will get their snouts in the trough. But according to the believers, money changing hands can control mother nature and alter tempertures. Please show me how and do not resort to the climate change bible that so many of you turn to in times of need.

Answer this please. If scientists, not associated with the believers, are unable to predict weather occurrences, with accuracy, two or three weeks in advance, how are those on the believers side able to predict what will occur in 20, 30 or 50 years time. I know,Super Scientists paid by those who need to have this scaremongering continue. I won't be around when these so called predictions allegedly come to fruition, neither will most on here. Is it because they do so as one will never know and they cannot bre called to task for their BS predictions. The many lies put out by the so called professor Tim Flanery, the Australian Climate Change Commissioner and the billions of dollars he has cost the taxpayers should be enough to see him hung, drawn and quarted but no, this liar just goes o to make millions more through out and falsehoods.

So there is the scientific consensus and an unanimous agreement, really? Another line from the book of exaggerations that is being used to justify the alarmists point of view. So the views of over 1000 dissenting sceintists have no relevance to the debate and, according to some, is only propoganda from the fossil fuel industry that is being used to justify their argument. So what is the so called evidence presented by the alarmists called, the gospel as spoken by Al Gore, his climate crediting huckstering partner, David Blood, formerly of Goldman Sachs and the Canadian Billionaire, Jeffrey Skolls. And I suppose the other billionaires are now getting involved because they too believe the hype. I'd say they have looked at this as new way of adding to their bottom line, while all the suckers pay. Remember, they didn't get rich by giving things away, not unless there was a huge return in the offering.

So it's happy days is it, I'd suggest that you and the others stop hyperventilating, just think of the amount of CO2 you contibuting in doing so. Oh but wait, if you pay your dollar to erase your carbon footprint, then everything is ok. Now, before you escalate your joy into a full state of euphoria just sit back, take a deep breath and remember that this agreement is not legally binding unless joined by a minimum of 55 countries that allegedly represent 55 percent of green house gas emissions. Such parties will need to sign the agreement in New York between 22 April 2016 and 21 April 2017, and also adopt it within their own legal systems.

Let's all wait and see, there is over 2 years before you can even imagine gloating so don't jump the gun bu thent given their past records, there will be further talkfests, a lot more hot air and for what, so a few selected will benefit while plebs like you will be short changed in order to fill their coffers. Happy days for who, not you, I can assure you of that.

"So the views of over 1000 dissenting sceintists (sic) have no relevance to the debate......"

Compared to 33,330 scientists that confirm Anthropogenic Global Warming. Correct the 1000 are not relevant. The consensus is too high. Case dismissed.

Happy days.

97%? Happy days are you a scientist? I'm not so I'm not as categorical as you. I listen to you but I think you have made up your mind and it is now closed because you are so dismissive of anyone that does not agree with you.global warming.png

The whole world has made up its mind, only some deniers remain.

The earth is not flat.

[Si Thea01]

Up2u I guess

Thank you for posting. It goes to show what I have been sayng all along. When confronted with home truths about the data being collected, as compared to the man made computer modelling the alarmists have no answers, they cannot and will not answer because it will show them to be less then liberal with the truth. And he even went as far to say there is to be no more debate but when pressed, back tracked a little, then reverveted to his monotonous line of the 97 percenters. You can see that he had no idea, had to refer to his croney in the back to even come up with some type of answer but when they couldn't out came the old 97 percent line, over and over again.

[Si Thea01]

No, it is not why alarmists don't engage, it's because they can't, and I assure you that most people are waking up to your lot for what they are, scaremongers who are governed by greed. So what majority are you referring to, those governments who want to wreck their countries economy and the 40,000 free loaders who went to Paris for their almighty but ineffectual gabfest that will come to nothing. It hasn't even been signed off on, two years to go, yet your lot are off on your happy endings. Sorry that should be happy days. Give me a break please.

Through your post you have proven my point. You have no answers to what was asked and just revert to the old adage of you couldn't be bothered. No wonder people are waking up to the rubbish being uttered. So it's not the science after all, it's because it's politically accepted that it must be right. Who said anything about an ETS being a redistribution of wealth, I certainly didn't. That's an addition on your behalf. The negative effects outway the positives, can't even express yourself here, just a total generalisation which means absolutely nothing. All the governments of the world, another falsehood. Typical of the alarmists, taking remarks out of context, adding things that were never mentioned, exaggeration, misleading statements, falsifying reports to downright lies. There's an old saying which it looks like you lot have adopted, do whatever it takes to win. You certainly have the left leaning reporters on your side.

Given what you have written only highlights that you're unable to quantify anything you say but I know why, it's because you have nothing to say. What page of your bible did you turn to for this response. So we can see now where you're coming from, it's all about making money, nothing to do with any of sciences you try to shove down our throats. What an astonishing remark, weather has nothing to do with climate. When I went to school I was taught that climate related to the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period. You are certainly getting yourslef in a kerfuffle. One last matter for you to ponder, if it's not wealth redistribution, what do you call the UN green climate fund, who wants to have 100 billion from western countries' funds to give to 3rd world developing countries by the year 2020.

It is just way too boring for me. After you have debated the same old boring Climate Denial 200 times it just becomes mind numbingly boring. If you are interested to learn about the actual scientific facts on GW / CC there is a very good site called Skeptical Science that starts with the Basics and depending your educational background you can step up to Intermediate or Advanced. It is run by John Cook the guy who published the 97% Consensus paper Cook et al 2013. Yes 16 years AFTER the Zimmermann Paper you referred to earlier. It will explain the difference between weather and climate for you. You may want to check out Powell et al 2015 for the latest research on consensus.

Sorry but your understanding of GW / CC is very basic and dated nearly 20 years.

I don't know why you keep engaging, it just highlights you really have nothing of interest to offer. I see you have been taking lessons from the guy from the Sierra Club, all he could do, when asked a question he could not or should I say, would not answer, was to sprout the 97 percenter line. The difference between weather and climate, please educate me, as you seem to think I might have a lesser education than your lot and need to be indoctrinated into your way of thinking.

Please show me where I have stated or even intimated that climate change does not exist. Also, global warming, show me where I have denied this? It is only the totally false, misleading information and outright lies put out by the alarmists that we are calling into question and the scare tactics used to promote it. As I said before, it is only a money making scam, put into place by the UN, who are following the lines of the unelected EU Commisars, who have taken control of Europe, with the specific intention of the UN applying the same, only on a global basis. It must make your days happy to see children being scared through lessons they ar\e forced to endure at school. Does this give you your jollies for the day

And please, don't be so presumptious as to state openly that we are people who do not read the science. Don't assume anything as you will often be wrong. I for one do and I would say that many others do also, as can be seen by their responses, that is why I and they are able to call you to task over what you state as case dismissed and the proliferation of your propoganda. If you sir, took time to adjust your knowledge bank, and accept that there are two sides to any debate, not the one facist idea of everyone thinking along and following the same old party line, then maybe you will post something worthwhile..

In addition, I have no problem with governments and/or private enterprise looking for alternate sources of energy, and in doing so provide the population of the world with the cheapest form of electricity, not what we are being lumped with now. The cost of electricity has risen, exponentially, over the past ten years, ever since the greenies (or should I say reds) stared their resolve to rid the world of fossil fuels. All they have succeeded in doing is forcing many manufacturers offshore, caused the loss of millions of jobs in the west by pushing many industries into countries where these costs are none existant.

I do not agree with many things the fossil fuel industry gets up to but to be blindsided, like yourself and a few others, only shows that one truly has no wordly knowledge and only acts upon what he/she is told how they must think. Sounds to me like facist, marxist, communist, whatever you want to call it, party line doctrine. And your line of "couldn't be bothered" only highlights just that.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Si Thea01

[Linzz]

"So the views of over 1000 dissenting sceintists (sic) have no relevance to the debate......"

Compared to 33,330 scientists that confirm Anthropogenic Global Warming. Correct the 1000 are not relevant. The consensus is too high. Case dismissed.

Happy days.

97%? Happy days are you a scientist? I'm not so I'm not as categorical as you. I listen to you but I think you have made up your mind and it is now closed because you are so dismissive of anyone that does not agree with you.global warming.png

The whole world has made up its mind, only some deniers remain.

The earth is not flat.

That's right !

The whole world made up it's mind that the world was flat probably because 97% of scientists of the day said so. We now know better.....

[lostboy]

No, it is not why alarmists don't engage, it's because they can't, and I assure you that most people are waking up to your lot for what they are, scaremongers who are governed by greed. So what majority are you referring to, those governments who want to wreck their countries economy and the 40,000 free loaders who went to Paris for their almighty but ineffectual gabfest that will come to nothing. It hasn't even been signed off on, two years to go, yet your lot are off on your happy endings. Sorry that should be happy days. Give me a break please.

Through your post you have proven my point. You have no answers to what was asked and just revert to the old adage of you couldn't be bothered. No wonder people are waking up to the rubbish being uttered. So it's not the science after all, it's because it's politically accepted that it must be right. Who said anything about an ETS being a redistribution of wealth, I certainly didn't. That's an addition on your behalf. The negative effects outway the positives, can't even express yourself here, just a total generalisation which means absolutely nothing. All the governments of the world, another falsehood. Typical of the alarmists, taking remarks out of context, adding things that were never mentioned, exaggeration, misleading statements, falsifying reports to downright lies. There's an old saying which it looks like you lot have adopted, do whatever it takes to win. You certainly have the left leaning reporters on your side.

Given what you have written only highlights that you're unable to quantify anything you say but I know why, it's because you have nothing to say. What page of your bible did you turn to for this response. So we can see now where you're coming from, it's all about making money, nothing to do with any of sciences you try to shove down our throats. What an astonishing remark, weather has nothing to do with climate. When I went to school I was taught that climate related to the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period. You are certainly getting yourslef in a kerfuffle. One last matter for you to ponder, if it's not wealth redistribution, what do you call the UN green climate fund, who wants to have 100 billion from western countries' funds to give to 3rd world developing countries by the year 2020.

It is just way too boring for me. After you have debated the same old boring Climate Denial 200 times it just becomes mind numbingly boring. If you are interested to learn about the actual scientific facts on GW / CC there is a very good site called Skeptical Science that starts with the Basics and depending your educational background you can step up to Intermediate or Advanced. It is run by John Cook the guy who published the 97% Consensus paper Cook et al 2013. Yes 16 years AFTER the Zimmermann Paper you referred to earlier. It will explain the difference between weather and climate for you. You may want to check out Powell et al 2015 for the latest research on consensus.

Sorry but your understanding of GW / CC is very basic and dated nearly 20 years.

I don't know why you keep engaging, it just highlights you really have nothing of interest to offer. I see you have been taking lessons from the guy from the Sierra Club, all he could do, when asked a question he could not or should I say, would not answer, was to sprout the 97 percenter line. The difference between weather and climate, please educate me, as you seem to think I might have a lesser education than your lot and need to be indoctrinated into your way of thinking.

Please show me where I have stated or even intimated that climate change does not exist. Also, global warming, show me where I have denied this? It is only the totally false, misleading information and outright lies put out by the alarmists that we are calling into question and the scare tactics used to promote it. As I said before, it is only a money making scam, put into place by the UN, who are following the lines of the unelected EU Commisars, who have taken control of Europe, with the specific intention of the UN applying the same, only on a global basis. It must make your days happy to see children being scared through lessons they ar\e forced to endure at school. Does this give you your jollies for the day

And please, don't be so presumptious as to state openly that we are people who do not read the science. Don't assume anything as you will often be wrong. I for one do and I would say that many others do also, as can be seen by their responses, that is why I and they are able to call you to task over what you state as case dismissed and the proliferation of your propoganda. If you sir, took time to adjust your knowledge bank, and accept that there are two sides to any debate, not the one facist idea of everyone thinking along and following the same old party line, then maybe you will post something worthwhile..

In addition, I have no problem with governments and/or private enterprise looking for alternate sources of energy, and in doing so provide the population of the world with the cheapest form of electricity, not what we are being lumped with now. The cost of electricity has risen, exponentially, over the past ten years, ever since the greenies (or should I say reds) stared their resolve to rid the world of fossil fuels. All they have succeeded in doing is forcing many manufacturers offshore, caused the loss of millions of jobs in the west by pushing many industries into countries where these costs are none existant.

I do not agree with many things the fossil fuel industry gets up to but to be blindsided, like yourself and a few others, only shows that one truly has no wordly knowledge and only acts upon what he/she is told how they must think. Sounds to me like facist, marxist, communist, whatever you want to call it, party line doctrine. And your line of "couldn't be bothered" only highlights just that.

Not surprised he is getting bored. It is almost impossible to argue with someone who refuses to say anything of substance. Not once in your posts do you provide any substantiation for any claim that make. No substantiation of the 1000 scientist silliness. No factual rebuttal of the accepted consensus among the vast majority of scientists. Just generalisations and insults. Just what you accuse others of doing.

Well here is something factual. Energy efficiency programs are part of the action plans agreed by countries. The most recent IEA iea.org report calculates that energy efficiency programs have avoided $5.7 trillion of energy expenditure since 1990. This is avoided expenditure that has not been passed to the consumer. IEA also estimates that 40% of the emissions reductions targeted by 2050 can be achieved through energy efficiency programs. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/energy-efficiency-market-report-2015-.html

Saving money and reducing emissions that pollute the environment.

What argument do you have against this?

Perhaps you can provide some actual rebuttal instead of your usual supercilious insults.

Please do not come back with what your grade school teacher taught you. One of the first thing that students learn in schools with properly trained teachers is that weather and climate are not the same thing. While you keep offering this silly argument that climate change is not real because scientists can't predict the weather for up to 3 days, pretty much nobody except your fellow ideologues will pay any attention.

[MaxYakov]

Historic Hysteric pact to slow global warming is celebrated in Paris

[Linzz]

No, it is not why alarmists don't engage, it's because they can't, and I assure you that most people are waking up to your lot for what they are, scaremongers who are governed by greed. So what majority are you referring to, those governments who want to wreck their countries economy and the 40,000 free loaders who went to Paris for their almighty but ineffectual gabfest that will come to nothing. It hasn't even been signed off on, two years to go, yet your lot are off on your happy endings. Sorry that should be happy days. Give me a break please.

Through your post you have proven my point. You have no answers to what was asked and just revert to the old adage of you couldn't be bothered. No wonder people are waking up to the rubbish being uttered. So it's not the science after all, it's because it's politically accepted that it must be right. Who said anything about an ETS being a redistribution of wealth, I certainly didn't. That's an addition on your behalf. The negative effects outway the positives, can't even express yourself here, just a total generalisation which means absolutely nothing. All the governments of the world, another falsehood. Typical of the alarmists, taking remarks out of context, adding things that were never mentioned, exaggeration, misleading statements, falsifying reports to downright lies. There's an old saying which it looks like you lot have adopted, do whatever it takes to win. You certainly have the left leaning reporters on your side.

Given what you have written only highlights that you're unable to quantify anything you say but I know why, it's because you have nothing to say. What page of your bible did you turn to for this response. So we can see now where you're coming from, it's all about making money, nothing to do with any of sciences you try to shove down our throats. What an astonishing remark, weather has nothing to do with climate. When I went to school I was taught that climate related to the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period. You are certainly getting yourslef in a kerfuffle. One last matter for you to ponder, if it's not wealth redistribution, what do you call the UN green climate fund, who wants to have 100 billion from western countries' funds to give to 3rd world developing countries by the year 2020.

It is just way too boring for me. After you have debated the same old boring Climate Denial 200 times it just becomes mind numbingly boring. If you are interested to learn about the actual scientific facts on GW / CC there is a very good site called Skeptical Science that starts with the Basics and depending your educational background you can step up to Intermediate or Advanced. It is run by John Cook the guy who published the 97% Consensus paper Cook et al 2013. Yes 16 years AFTER the Zimmermann Paper you referred to earlier. It will explain the difference between weather and climate for you. You may want to check out Powell et al 2015 for the latest research on consensus.

Sorry but your understanding of GW / CC is very basic and dated nearly 20 years.

I don't know why you keep engaging, it just highlights you really have nothing of interest to offer. I see you have been taking lessons from the guy from the Sierra Club, all he could do, when asked a question he could not or should I say, would not answer, was to sprout the 97 percenter line. The difference between weather and climate, please educate me, as you seem to think I might have a lesser education than your lot and need to be indoctrinated into your way of thinking.

Please show me where I have stated or even intimated that climate change does not exist. Also, global warming, show me where I have denied this? It is only the totally false, misleading information and outright lies put out by the alarmists that we are calling into question and the scare tactics used to promote it. As I said before, it is only a money making scam, put into place by the UN, who are following the lines of the unelected EU Commisars, who have taken control of Europe, with the specific intention of the UN applying the same, only on a global basis. It must make your days happy to see children being scared through lessons they ar\e forced to endure at school. Does this give you your jollies for the day

And please, don't be so presumptious as to state openly that we are people who do not read the science. Don't assume anything as you will often be wrong. I for one do and I would say that many others do also, as can be seen by their responses, that is why I and they are able to call you to task over what you state as case dismissed and the proliferation of your propoganda. If you sir, took time to adjust your knowledge bank, and accept that there are two sides to any debate, not the one facist idea of everyone thinking along and following the same old party line, then maybe you will post something worthwhile..

In addition, I have no problem with governments and/or private enterprise looking for alternate sources of energy, and in doing so provide the population of the world with the cheapest form of electricity, not what we are being lumped with now. The cost of electricity has risen, exponentially, over the past ten years, ever since the greenies (or should I say reds) stared their resolve to rid the world of fossil fuels. All they have succeeded in doing is forcing many manufacturers offshore, caused the loss of millions of jobs in the west by pushing many industries into countries where these costs are none existant.

I do not agree with many things the fossil fuel industry gets up to but to be blindsided, like yourself and a few others, only shows that one truly has no wordly knowledge and only acts upon what he/she is told how they must think. Sounds to me like facist, marxist, communist, whatever you want to call it, party line doctrine. And your line of "couldn't be bothered" only highlights just that.

Not surprised he is getting bored. It is almost impossible to argue with someone who refuses to say anything of substance. Not once in your posts do you provide any substantiation for any claim that make. No substantiation of the 1000 scientist silliness. No factual rebuttal of the accepted consensus among the vast majority of scientists. Just generalisations and insults. Just what you accuse others of doing.

Well here is something factual. Energy efficiency programs are part of the action plans agreed by countries. The most recent IEA iea.org report calculates that energy efficiency programs have avoided $5.7 trillion of energy expenditure since 1990. This is avoided expenditure that has not been passed to the consumer. IEA also estimates that 40% of the emissions reductions targeted by 2050 can be achieved through energy efficiency programs. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/energy-efficiency-market-report-2015-.html

Saving money and reducing emissions that pollute the environment.

What argument do you have against this?

Perhaps you can provide some actual rebuttal instead of your usual supercilious insults.

Please do not come back with what your grade school teacher taught you. One of the first thing that students learn in schools with properly trained teachers is that weather and climate are not the same thing. While you keep offering this silly argument that climate change is not real because scientists can't predict the weather for up to 3 days, pretty much nobody except your fellow ideologues will pay any attention.

Of course everyone should aim to save money and reduce emissions that pollute the environment, who doesn't want a cleaner planet?

But the debate is around how much GW is caused by mankind and whether we can alter nature all that much if temperature and climate change is a natural and cyclical turn of events. It's not about denial per se but skepticism. Added to the mix is politics and the disallowing of any scientific opinion no matter how educated, that might be contrary to the established doctrinal order

[stevenl]

Of course everyone should aim to save money and reduce emissions that pollute the environment, who doesn't want a cleaner planet?

But the debate is around how much GW is caused by mankind and whether we can alter nature all that much if temperature and climate change is a natural and cyclical turn of events. It's not about denial per se but skepticism. Added to the mix is politics and the disallowing of any scientific opinion no matter how educated, that might be contrary to the established doctrinal order

You can debate all you like, but scientifically that debate was finished quite some time ago already.

[RickBradford]

You can debate all you like, but scientifically that debate was finished quite some time ago already.

And now the political debate is finished. Nothing is going to be done about the "problem" of global warming.

[Linzz]

Of course everyone should aim to save money and reduce emissions that pollute the environment, who doesn't want a cleaner planet?

But the debate is around how much GW is caused by mankind and whether we can alter nature all that much if temperature and climate change is a natural and cyclical turn of events. It's not about denial per se but skepticism. Added to the mix is politics and the disallowing of any scientific opinion no matter how educated, that might be contrary to the established doctrinal order

You can debate all you like, but scientifically that debate was finished quite some time ago already.

Oh very partisan. So it's fait accompli. The debate is closed because the desired result is achieved so no challenge is allowed even as new considerations emerge. Sounds dictatorial. Historically science is littered with examples of maverick thinkers who challenged the accepted scientific/political/religious order of the day and suffered for it or went into hiding. I am willing to take your point of view seriously but you sir have a closed mind. If science ceases to debate issues especially of this magnitude, then it ceases to be science and just simply becomes politics. And in this case it has become just that and you have become it's minion

[up2u2]

None of the Climate Denial 'pseudo science' is peer reviewed or part of mainstream science. It all just comes from Climate Denier blogsites that are not restricted by scientific fraud. From time to time they are threatened with legal action when they take their deception a little too far.

Climate Denial really relies on people not having a basic knowledge of GW and CC. Once you have a basic understanding it is pretty easy to see you are being punked.

COP21 a great success, Debate the Climate Denier pseudo science? Who cares. Maybe if it is absolutely way off the mark I may comment.

If anyone posts a link to a published peer reviewed research Paper or Article sure I will read that out of interest. That adds to your knowledge on the issue but links to the same old Climate Denier drivel blogsites, it is pretty much the same old rubbish over and over again and just gets boring for me.

Happy Days

[stevenl]

Of course everyone should aim to save money and reduce emissions that pollute the environment, who doesn't want a cleaner planet?

But the debate is around how much GW is caused by mankind and whether we can alter nature all that much if temperature and climate change is a natural and cyclical turn of events. It's not about denial per se but skepticism. Added to the mix is politics and the disallowing of any scientific opinion no matter how educated, that might be contrary to the established doctrinal order

You can debate all you like, but scientifically that debate was finished quite some time ago already.

Oh very partisan. So it's fait accompli. The debate is closed because the desired result is achieved so no challenge is allowed even as new considerations emerge. Sounds dictatorial. Historically science is littered with examples of maverick thinkers who challenged the accepted scientific/political/religious order of the day and suffered for it or went into hiding. I am willing to take your point of view seriously but you sir have a closed mind. If science ceases to debate issues especially of this magnitude, then it ceases to be science and just simply becomes politics. And in this case it has become just that and you have become it's minion

Want to discuss the shape of the earth? Or the evolution? facts are facts, whether you accept them or not.

[up2u2]

Oh very partisan. So it's fait accompli. The debate is closed because the desired result is achieved so no challenge is allowed even as new considerations emerge. Sounds dictatorial. Historically science is littered with examples of maverick thinkers who challenged the accepted scientific/political/religious order of the day and suffered for it or went into hiding. I am willing to take your point of view seriously but you sir have a closed mind. If science ceases to debate issues especially of this magnitude, then it ceases to be science and just simply becomes politics. And in this case it has become just that and you have become it's minion

Of course science can be challenged by absolutely ANYONE. The proper process is to present your research theory along with your data have it 'peer reviewed' then present it for publication where it goes through another process of peer review and is published. It then becomes established science.

Setting up a blogsite and gobbing on about psuedo science isn't actually science it is just someone gobbing on about pseudo science that would not pass peer review

Edited December 21, 2015 by up2u2

[lostboy]

I don't know why you keep engaging, it just highlights you really have nothing of interest to offer. I see you have been taking lessons from the guy from the Sierra Club, all he could do, when asked a question he could not or should I say, would not answer, was to sprout the 97 percenter line. The difference between weather and climate, please educate me, as you seem to think I might have a lesser education than your lot and need to be indoctrinated into your way of thinking.

Please show me where I have stated or even intimated that climate change does not exist. Also, global warming, show me where I have denied this? It is only the totally false, misleading information and outright lies put out by the alarmists that we are calling into question and the scare tactics used to promote it. As I said before, it is only a money making scam, put into place by the UN, who are following the lines of the unelected EU Commisars, who have taken control of Europe, with the specific intention of the UN applying the same, only on a global basis. It must make your days happy to see children being scared through lessons they ar\e forced to endure at school. Does this give you your jollies for the day

And please, don't be so presumptious as to state openly that we are people who do not read the science. Don't assume anything as you will often be wrong. I for one do and I would say that many others do also, as can be seen by their responses, that is why I and they are able to call you to task over what you state as case dismissed and the proliferation of your propoganda. If you sir, took time to adjust your knowledge bank, and accept that there are two sides to any debate, not the one facist idea of everyone thinking along and following the same old party line, then maybe you will post something worthwhile..

In addition, I have no problem with governments and/or private enterprise looking for alternate sources of energy, and in doing so provide the population of the world with the cheapest form of electricity, not what we are being lumped with now. The cost of electricity has risen, exponentially, over the past ten years, ever since the greenies (or should I say reds) stared their resolve to rid the world of fossil fuels. All they have succeeded in doing is forcing many manufacturers offshore, caused the loss of millions of jobs in the west by pushing many industries into countries where these costs are none existant.

I do not agree with many things the fossil fuel industry gets up to but to be blindsided, like yourself and a few others, only shows that one truly has no wordly knowledge and only acts upon what he/she is told how they must think. Sounds to me like facist, marxist, communist, whatever you want to call it, party line doctrine. And your line of "couldn't be bothered" only highlights just that.

Not surprised he is getting bored. It is almost impossible to argue with someone who refuses to say anything of substance. Not once in your posts do you provide any substantiation for any claim that make. No substantiation of the 1000 scientist silliness. No factual rebuttal of the accepted consensus among the vast majority of scientists. Just generalisations and insults. Just what you accuse others of doing.

Well here is something factual. Energy efficiency programs are part of the action plans agreed by countries. The most recent IEA iea.org report calculates that energy efficiency programs have avoided $5.7 trillion of energy expenditure since 1990. This is avoided expenditure that has not been passed to the consumer. IEA also estimates that 40% of the emissions reductions targeted by 2050 can be achieved through energy efficiency programs. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/energy-efficiency-market-report-2015-.html

Saving money and reducing emissions that pollute the environment.

What argument do you have against this?

Perhaps you can provide some actual rebuttal instead of your usual supercilious insults.

Please do not come back with what your grade school teacher taught you. One of the first thing that students learn in schools with properly trained teachers is that weather and climate are not the same thing. While you keep offering this silly argument that climate change is not real because scientists can't predict the weather for up to 3 days, pretty much nobody except your fellow ideologues will pay any attention.

Of course everyone should aim to save money and reduce emissions that pollute the environment, who doesn't want a cleaner planet?

But the debate is around how much GW is caused by mankind and whether we can alter nature all that much if temperature and climate change is a natural and cyclical turn of events. It's not about denial per se but skepticism. Added to the mix is politics and the disallowing of any scientific opinion no matter how educated, that might be contrary to the established doctrinal order

The debate is about how much GW is caused by mankind... To what end? Why attempt to politicise science. The scientific method is a tried and tested process. It goes back at least as far as Aristotle in the 4thC BC who relied on observation to inform his theories. The politicisation of climate science is clearly a political attempt to discredit the work of scientists and the processes they use.

Minimising the impact of people on the environment is a desirable objective in itself. Attaching blame to people for that impact and all the subsequent ideology is irrelevant from an environmental and scientific point of view. Redistributing wealth from the countries who have caused pollution due to industrial and economic growth to countries who have not gone through this phase of development is also worthwhile. It can allow them to access knowledge and technologies that can contribute to their development with less environmental impact. As they develop more, they contribute more to global GDP and therefore to wealth generation. A fundamental principle of environmental economics is Polluter Pays. Global Environment Funds are merely an international, multilateral expression of this principle.

What then is the objective of the politicisation of climate science? Nothing new. Just the same repetitive arguments between the progressives and the conservatives. I am a progressive. I support multilateralism in trade, environmental protection, economic activity and the movement of people and goods. I support the reduction of income inequality primarily through wealth generation but also through redistribution if necessary. The only reason I care if the climate scientists data and models are accurate is to know the anticipated impact of climate change and the timing. I would prefer that they be left alone to work through the scientific process of this task. Governments fund scientific enquiry into all sorts of 'useless' areas. They co-fund expensive space missions for astronomy. They co-fund missions to maintain expensive human presence in Antartica. The co-fund people to go and find and classify new species of insects. What is unusual about confounding efforts to reduce the impact of humans on the environment and to conserve resources for future generations?

You claim that the climate change deniers agree with the objectives of environmental protection. Fine. Then why all the anger, ranting and breast beating? If the efforts to achieve environmental protection are framed in the ideology of the progressives, then who cares. The outcomes are still desirable. I really think that the deniers are just a bunch of stick in the mud old grumps who don't like being told what to do.

[sirineou]

China wants to develop economically and is polluting its water and air in the proces. to the point where they have red alert days and they have to close their schools, and people cant go outside. Does Chinese pollution stop at china's border?

Rivers don't stop at national borders, Air does not stop at national borders,

If your neighbor threw garbage up in the air and it landed in your backyard you would be upset at them and would want them to stop and come and clean it,

So why not the fossil fuel industry, why would we not want them to clean up the mess they made and continue to make?

[up2u2]

China wants to develop economically and is polluting its water and air in the proces. to the point where they have red alert days and they have to close their schools, and people cant go outside. Does Chinese pollution stop at china's border?

Rivers don't stop at national borders, Air does not stop at national borders,

If your neighbor threw garbage up in the air and it landed in your backyard you would be upset at them and would want them to stop and come and clean it,

So why not the fossil fuel industry, why would we not want them to clean up the mess they made and continue to make?

It is one of the main reasons they take GW / CC seriously and lead the world in Clean Energy technology. The good thing about China is if they decide to do something they just do it. Unlike America that has to ask Corporate America if it is okay.

[RickBradford]

Then why all the anger, ranting and breast beating?

That is a question you should be asking all your fellow progressives who want climate change skeptics -- or anyone who disagrees with the urgency for taking action on the climate -- executed, branded, gassed, or imprisoned.