UN says record 155 countries to sign climate agreement

[pitrevie]

The difference being that neither side in the evolution debate is trying to use a 99.94% certainty rate as justification for spending trillions of dollars of other people's money on idiotic feel-good fantasy projects.

If somebody wants to believe in divine origin, well and good, and I hope they have a fine day for it.

At least they're not trying to triple electricity prices in the western world, or starve those in the third world with idiot schemes suffused with Green virtue signalling.

As Bertrand Russell said: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

You claimed that where these was such massive certainty then manipulation was going on. However there are a range of theories Evolution being just one where these is massive certainty and a massive majority that supports that theory but that doesn't stop the whole of the GOP from trying to introduce an alternative theory into the classrooms and in some case even getting the teaching of Evolution banned altogether.The same charges are made against the Theory of Evolution as are made against Climate Change and often by the same people and often for the same reasons. Climate change will not destroy the planet, god said so, that from a sitting remember of the American congress. Where are the men in white coats when you need them.

I must add that when lead was discovered in petrol to be harmful to health the same denials were forthcoming. When those failed the same reasons were given for doing nothing. It would destroy the American Auto industry, t would bankrupt companies it would cost billions, funnily enough it didn't manage to do any of those things.

Edited April 19, 2016 by pitrevie

[Chicog]

The difference being that neither side in the evolution debate is trying to use a 99.94% certainty rate as justification for spending trillions of dollars of other people's money on idiotic feel-good fantasy projects.

If somebody wants to believe in divine origin, well and good, and I hope they have a fine day for it.

At least they're not trying to triple electricity prices in the western world, or starve those in the third world with idiot schemes suffused with Green virtue signalling.

As Bertrand Russell said: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

Your arguments seem to get less scientific and more emotive the more time progresses.

Science is not a "feel good fantasy project". You can look it up in the dictionary.

Perhaps a more meaningful Russell quote would be: “Our great democracies still tend to think that a stupid man is more likely to be honest than a clever man, and our politicians take advantage of this prejudice by pretending to be even more stupid than nature made them.”

[RickBradford]

You claimed that where these was such massive certainty then manipulation was going on.

Quite wrong. I claimed that where there was seen to be a need to declare such massive certainty as the sole basis on which to justify a ruinously expensive political policy, then manipulation was going on. We don't see evolution scientists running around wailing "Evolution is 99.94% certain; give us a trillion dollars to fix the problem." Yet that is precisely the attitude of the climate alarmism community.

The same charges are made against the Theory of Evolution as are made against Climate Change and often by the same people and often for the same reasons. Climate change will not destroy the planet, god said so, that from a sitting remember of the American congress. Where are the men in white coats when you need them.

I don't know. I suspect that you're more familiar with men in white coats than I am.

Science is not a "feel good fantasy project". You can look it up in the dictionary.

Fortunately, I don't need to.

As an example, deciding to run cars on biofuel was a classic feel-good fantasy project, heavily promoted by the likes of Greenpeace, and, after it had helped push up food prices in the Third World and caused malnutrition and starvation on an impressive scale, was described by the UN's special rapporteur on food as "a crime against humanity".

Loads of dead Africans, loads of satisfied middle-class Green egos — another Green success story.

Even The Guardian was (belatedly) disgusted.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/nov/06/comment.biofuels

Edited April 19, 2016 by RickBradford

[Chicog]

You claimed that where these was such massive certainty then manipulation was going on.

Quite wrong. I claimed that where there was seen to be a need to declare such massive certainty as the sole basis on which to justify a ruinously expensive political policy, then manipulation was going on. We don't see evolution scientists running around wailing "Evolution is 99.94% certain; give us a trillion dollars to fix the problem." Yet that is precisely the attitude of the climate alarmism community.

The same charges are made against the Theory of Evolution as are made against Climate Change and often by the same people and often for the same reasons. Climate change will not destroy the planet, god said so, that from a sitting remember of the American congress. Where are the men in white coats when you need them.

I don't know. I suspect that you're more familiar with men in white coats than I am.

Science is not a "feel good fantasy project". You can look it up in the dictionary.

Fortunately, I don't need to.

As an example, deciding to run cars on biofuel was a classic feel-good fantasy project, heavily promoted by the likes of Greenpeace, and, after it had helped push up food prices in the Third World and caused malnutrition and starvation on an impressive scale, was described by the UN's special rapporteur on food as "a crime against humanity".

Loads of dead Africans, loads of satisfied middle-class Green egos — another Green success story.

Even The Guardian was (belatedly) disgusted.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/nov/06/comment.biofuels

That's not science, though it's a political fantasy for sure.

However, Monbiot is not renowned for his mathematical abilities, so to say that biofuels were solely responsible for pushing up food prices is a stretch to say the least.

I suspect rampaging oil prices were to blame, just a wild guess.

That's also what seemed to make biofuels financially viable.

Now? Not so much.

And to say biofuels caused malnutrition in Africa is plain <deleted>: Crooked and inept African politicians have *always* been the cause of malnutrition in Africa.

[pitrevie]

You claimed that where these was such massive certainty then manipulation was going on.

Quite wrong. I claimed that where there was seen to be a need to declare such massive certainty as the sole basis on which to justify a ruinously expensive political policy, then manipulation was going on. We don't see evolution scientists running around wailing "Evolution is 99.94% certain; give us a trillion dollars to fix the problem." Yet that is precisely the attitude of the climate alarmism community.

The same charges are made against the Theory of Evolution as are made against Climate Change and often by the same people and often for the same reasons. Climate change will not destroy the planet, god said so, that from a sitting remember of the American congress. Where are the men in white coats when you need them.

I don't know. I suspect that you're more familiar with men in white coats than I am.

Science is not a "feel good fantasy project". You can look it up in the dictionary.

Fortunately, I don't need to.

As an example, deciding to run cars on biofuel was a classic feel-good fantasy project, heavily promoted by the likes of Greenpeace, and, after it had helped push up food prices in the Third World and caused malnutrition and starvation on an impressive scale, was described by the UN's special rapporteur on food as "a crime against humanity".

Loads of dead Africans, loads of satisfied middle-class Green egos — another Green success story.

Even The Guardian was (belatedly) disgusted.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/nov/06/comment.biofuels

" give us a trillion dollars to fix the problem." I think that phrase suggests you know more about men in white coats than you let on, utter drivel.

You can read people such as Muller a former climate skeptic and financed by the Koch brothers who now admits that in view of the research he and his team conducted he has now changed his mind, "Last year (2011), following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

Nowhere will you find hysterical claims for trillions of dollars to fix the problem that garbage only comes from climate deniers.

As for the green initiative to run cars on bio fuel that is dwarfed by the lead in petrol which affected millions health wise all to boost the profits of American corporations and the usual denials that it was harmful to health then the equally hysterical response that you come out with when confronted with the evidence, its going to cost billions, wreck the American economy, and the Auto industry.

Just Google Exxon Mobile who now admit they have known about man made climate change for 40 years and now accept that it is man made. In January 2007, ExxonMobil vice president for public affairs Kenneth Cohen said "we know enough now—or, society knows enough now—that the risk is serious and action should be taken"

Just like Evolution the evidence is in the vast majority of scientists world wide in study after study accept that as fact.

Richard Lindzen a climate denier the scientist who convinced Bush to do nothing about Kyoto has also said that the evidence supporting man made climate change is as weak as the link between smoking and cancer. Needless to say Bush accepted his advice and not of others who were telling him anything based on scientific research.

[RickBradford]

Nowhere will you find hysterical claims for trillions of dollars to fix the problem that garbage only comes from climate deniers.

Even 30 seconds on Google finds lists of hysterical claims for trillions of dollars. For example, I wonder if the Occupy movement are "climate deniers".

http://www.occupy.com/article/road-paris-how-finance-trillion-dollar-climate-change-transition

The Guardian even wants a trillion dollars to capture carbon dioxide and store it in Antarctica. That's $1000 each for a billion people running around with jam jars capturing the evil gas, I suppose.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/nov/20/climate-crisis-future-brighter-tim-flannery

And in fact, the climate change business is already bigger than a trillion bucks

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/11/climate-change-industry-now-15-trillion-global-bus/

Golly, all those "deniers" on Google. Shouldn't we ban them, or tattoo them, or send them all to jail or something?

It's like a caring, sharing, inclusive, safe-space, Green mugging: "Give us your money and the planet won't get hurt." It convinces many people, no doubt. Only those people who can’t think for themselves, obviously, but that has certain advantages, I guess.

[pitrevie]

Nowhere will you find hysterical claims for trillions of dollars to fix the problem that garbage only comes from climate deniers.

Even 30 seconds on Google finds lists of hysterical claims for trillions of dollars. For example, I wonder if the Occupy movement are "climate deniers".

http://www.occupy.com/article/road-paris-how-finance-trillion-dollar-climate-change-transition

The Guardian even wants a trillion dollars to capture carbon dioxide and store it in Antarctica. That's $1000 each for a billion people running around with jam jars capturing the evil gas, I suppose.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/nov/20/climate-crisis-future-brighter-tim-flannery

And in fact, the climate change business is already bigger than a trillion bucks

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/11/climate-change-industry-now-15-trillion-global-bus/

Golly, all those "deniers" on Google. Shouldn't we ban them, or tattoo them, or send them all to jail or something?

It's like a caring, sharing, inclusive, safe-space, Green mugging: "Give us your money and the planet won't get hurt." It convinces many people, no doubt. Only those people who can’t think for themselves, obviously, but that has certain advantages, I guess.

Where are the links to scientists claiming trillions of dollars to fix the problem.

I note that you also ignored Miller Exxon etc. Also the overwhelming evidence it all has to be dismissed with hysterical claims such as trillions of dollars to fix the problem.

But golly all those deniers another hysterical pile of drivel you are getting to sound more and more like Glenn Beck why not use all those camps that were being set up for that purpose at the beginning of the Obama presidency.

[Throatwobbler]

Myself I am not skilled in climate science so will listen to the people who know what they are talking about. 97% of climate scientist agree with man made climate change.

Unfortunately, the assertion that 97% of climate scientists agree with man-made climate change was itself made by people who don't know what they're talking about, as has been repeatedly demonstrated.

Evidence please.

[chuckd]

Nowhere will you find hysterical claims for trillions of dollars to fix the problem that garbage only comes from climate deniers.

Even 30 seconds on Google finds lists of hysterical claims for trillions of dollars. For example, I wonder if the Occupy movement are "climate deniers".

http://www.occupy.com/article/road-paris-how-finance-trillion-dollar-climate-change-transition

The Guardian even wants a trillion dollars to capture carbon dioxide and store it in Antarctica. That's $1000 each for a billion people running around with jam jars capturing the evil gas, I suppose.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/nov/20/climate-crisis-future-brighter-tim-flannery

And in fact, the climate change business is already bigger than a trillion bucks

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/11/climate-change-industry-now-15-trillion-global-bus/

Golly, all those "deniers" on Google. Shouldn't we ban them, or tattoo them, or send them all to jail or something?

It's like a caring, sharing, inclusive, safe-space, Green mugging: "Give us your money and the planet won't get hurt." It convinces many people, no doubt. Only those people who can’t think for themselves, obviously, but that has certain advantages, I guess.

Where are the links to scientists claiming trillions of dollars to fix the problem.

I note that you also ignored Miller Exxon etc. Also the overwhelming evidence it all has to be dismissed with hysterical claims such as trillions of dollars to fix the problem.

But golly all those deniers another hysterical pile of drivel you are getting to sound more and more like Glenn Beck why not use all those camps that were being set up for that purpose at the beginning of the Obama presidency.

1. From the Occupy.com link provided in the post you quoted:

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

THE ROAD FROM PARIS: HOW TO FINANCE A TRILLION-DOLLAR CLIMATE CHANGE TRANSITION

TUE, 2/9/2016 - BY DANNY KENNEDY

- See more at: http://www.occupy.com/article/road-paris-how-finance-trillion-dollar-climate-change-transition#sthash.3XzeY211.dpuf

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

2. From the Guardian link provided in the post you quoted:

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

"The cost of building the proposed infrastructure in Antarctica is very difficult to estimate, but in today’s world is likely to be huge. Rough cost estimates of up to a trillion dollars might be conservative. But technologies and cost structures change, and with the project unlikely to be seriously considered before 2050, the situation may then be very different. "

The link...again... http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/nov/20/climate-crisis-future-brighter-tim-flannery

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

[Throatwobbler]

97% Scientific consensus on GW / CC was superseded by a study in 2015 that found a scientific consensus of 99.94% that GW is occurring and it is definitively linked to man's burning of Fossil Fuels.

And this is what the Warmists, with their lack of numerical skills, will never comprehend.

We would expect a very high agreement on matters of great simplicity, such as that an apple thrown into the air will fall back to earth. More complex and nuanced issues, such as whether some sub-atomic particles can travel faster than light, deliver lower certainty.

When you take an massively complex, chaotic and multi-disciplinary topic such as climate change, and it is announced with a certainty of over 99.9%, you know it's a crock and that there's lame manipulation going on. Even Kim Jong-Eun doesn't get 99.94%, and he's got thugs with batons to help him.

They'll never get it. Not that it matters; the Warmists routinely announce these ludicrous figures only to keep their equally innumerate followers happy. Only idiots need apply. Nobody outside their movement takes the slightest notice of this drooling nonsense.

I used this before but it really applies to you now.

I think you and other posters on this thread are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately.

[up2u2]

Nowhere will you find hysterical claims for trillions of dollars to fix the problem that garbage only comes from climate deniers.

Even 30 seconds on Google finds lists of hysterical claims for trillions of dollars. For example, I wonder if the Occupy movement are "climate deniers".

http://www.occupy.com/article/road-paris-how-finance-trillion-dollar-climate-change-transition

The Guardian even wants a trillion dollars to capture carbon dioxide and store it in Antarctica. That's $1000 each for a billion people running around with jam jars capturing the evil gas, I suppose.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/nov/20/climate-crisis-future-brighter-tim-flannery

And in fact, the climate change business is already bigger than a trillion bucks

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/11/climate-change-industry-now-15-trillion-global-bus/

Golly, all those "deniers" on Google. Shouldn't we ban them, or tattoo them, or send them all to jail or something?

It's like a caring, sharing, inclusive, safe-space, Green mugging: "Give us your money and the planet won't get hurt." It convinces many people, no doubt. Only those people who can’t think for themselves, obviously, but that has certain advantages, I guess.

Where are the links to scientists claiming trillions of dollars to fix the problem.

I note that you also ignored Miller Exxon etc. Also the overwhelming evidence it all has to be dismissed with hysterical claims such as trillions of dollars to fix the problem.

But golly all those deniers another hysterical pile of drivel you are getting to sound more and more like Glenn Beck why not use all those camps that were being set up for that purpose at the beginning of the Obama presidency.

1. From the Occupy.com link provided in the post you quoted:

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

THE ROAD FROM PARIS: HOW TO FINANCE A TRILLION-DOLLAR CLIMATE CHANGE TRANSITION

TUE, 2/9/2016 - BY DANNY KENNEDY

- See more at: http://www.occupy.com/article/road-paris-how-finance-trillion-dollar-climate-change-transition#sthash.3XzeY211.dpuf

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

2. From the Guardian link provided in the post you quoted:

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

"The cost of building the proposed infrastructure in Antarctica is very difficult to estimate, but in today’s world is likely to be huge. Rough cost estimates of up to a trillion dollars might be conservative. But technologies and cost structures change, and with the project unlikely to be seriously considered before 2050, the situation may then be very different. "

The link...again... http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/nov/20/climate-crisis-future-brighter-tim-flannery

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

Really interesting article. Shows how resourceful humans can be when focused on a problem. Hadn't heard of some of those solutions to addressing Fossil Fuel pollution. Scrubbing CO2 out of the atmosphere and storing it in the Antarctic is an interesting idea. The price tag shows why nations forming agreements and alliances is crucially important. Although I think companies who make trillions of dollars in profits from Fossil Fuel pollution should pay for the cleanup. It is typical isn't it. Corporations are happy to take the profits but when it comes to cleaning up the mess they make that cost is passed onto the public to pay for. Privatise the profits socialise the losses. Maybe time to annex some of the Fossil Fuel polluters profits to pay for the cleanup.

[wooloomooloo]

Fostering a polar bear is far more practical. My foster bear, Bernie, is breathing in ten metric tonnes of greenhouse gases and pollutants every year. Bernie can hardly breathe.

[pitrevie]

1. From the Occupy.com link provided in the post you quoted:

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

THE ROAD FROM PARIS: HOW TO FINANCE A TRILLION-DOLLAR CLIMATE CHANGE TRANSITION

TUE, 2/9/2016 - BY DANNY KENNEDY

- See more at: http://www.occupy.com/article/road-paris-how-finance-trillion-dollar-climate-change-transition#sthash.3XzeY211.dpuf

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

2. From the Guardian link provided in the post you quoted:

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

"The cost of building the proposed infrastructure in Antarctica is very difficult to estimate, but in today’s world is likely to be huge. Rough cost estimates of up to a trillion dollars might be conservative. But technologies and cost structures change, and with the project unlikely to be seriously considered before 2050, the situation may then be very different. "

The link...again... http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/nov/20/climate-crisis-future-brighter-tim-flannery

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

Really interesting article. Shows how resourceful humans can be when focused on a problem. Hadn't heard of some of those solutions to addressing Fossil Fuel pollution. Scrubbing CO2 out of the atmosphere and storing it in the Antarctic is an interesting idea. The price tag shows why nations forming agreements and alliances is crucially important. Although I think companies who make trillions of dollars in profits from Fossil Fuel pollution should pay for the cleanup. It is typical isn't it. Corporations are happy to take the profits but when it comes to cleaning up the mess they make that cost is passed onto the public to pay for. Privatise the profits socialise the losses. Maybe time to annex some of the Fossil Fuel polluters profits to pay for the cleanup.

Since we wasted trillions of dollars with the invasion of Iraq you would not think anyone would be that concerned spending it on something that might actually benefit mankind. However these are just futuristic articles written by journalists and other interested parties. What I was asking is where are the scientists who are claiming that it will cost trillions of dollars to fix this problem? Its the sort of stuff that climate deniers always come up with just like those that denied the harmful affects of lead in petrol, cigarette smoking and any other public health issue you can think of. It will cost too much it will wreck out economy if we do it, it will put us at an economic disadvantage as nobody else will do it the list of do nothing excuses is endless and always wrong. The pattern is always the same, first deny the scientific evidence.

[chuckd]

1. From the Occupy.com link provided in the post you quoted:

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

THE ROAD FROM PARIS: HOW TO FINANCE A TRILLION-DOLLAR CLIMATE CHANGE TRANSITION

TUE, 2/9/2016 - BY DANNY KENNEDY

- See more at: http://www.occupy.com/article/road-paris-how-finance-trillion-dollar-climate-change-transition#sthash.3XzeY211.dpuf

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

2. From the Guardian link provided in the post you quoted:

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

"The cost of building the proposed infrastructure in Antarctica is very difficult to estimate, but in today’s world is likely to be huge. Rough cost estimates of up to a trillion dollars might be conservative. But technologies and cost structures change, and with the project unlikely to be seriously considered before 2050, the situation may then be very different. "

The link...again... http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/nov/20/climate-crisis-future-brighter-tim-flannery

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

Really interesting article. Shows how resourceful humans can be when focused on a problem. Hadn't heard of some of those solutions to addressing Fossil Fuel pollution. Scrubbing CO2 out of the atmosphere and storing it in the Antarctic is an interesting idea. The price tag shows why nations forming agreements and alliances is crucially important. Although I think companies who make trillions of dollars in profits from Fossil Fuel pollution should pay for the cleanup. It is typical isn't it. Corporations are happy to take the profits but when it comes to cleaning up the mess they make that cost is passed onto the public to pay for. Privatise the profits socialise the losses. Maybe time to annex some of the Fossil Fuel polluters profits to pay for the cleanup.

Since we wasted trillions of dollars with the invasion of Iraq you would not think anyone would be that concerned spending it on something that might actually benefit mankind. However these are just futuristic articles written by journalists and other interested parties. What I was asking is where are the scientists who are claiming that it will cost trillions of dollars to fix this problem? Its the sort of stuff that climate deniers always come up with just like those that denied the harmful affects of lead in petrol, cigarette smoking and any other public health issue you can think of. It will cost too much it will wreck out economy if we do it, it will put us at an economic disadvantage as nobody else will do it the list of do nothing excuses is endless and always wrong. The pattern is always the same, first deny the scientific evidence.

" What I was asking is where are the scientists who are claiming that it will cost trillions of dollars to fix this problem?"

Following are the CV's for the authors of the two linked articles. They seem to be recognized by the media as experts, even though they might not have the educational qualifications you require for proof.

They are both Aussies, which should be all the proof you need to believe they know everything.

Danny Kennedy (born February 24, 1971)^[1] is a clean-technology entrepreneur,^[2] an environmental activist,^[3] and the author of the book Rooftop Revolution: How Solar Power Can Save Our Economy—and Our Planet—from Dirty Energy (2012). Kennedy serves as managing director of the California Clean Energy Fund, an non-profite dedicated to optimiing the clean energy transition. He co-founded Sungevity, a rapidly growing residential solar power company,^[3]and Powerhouse, the primer solar incubator in Oakland. While at Sungevity, Kennedy won a Planet Forward Innovator of the Year award^[4] from the PBS program Planet Forward.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Kennedy_(environmentalist)

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

and

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

Timothy Fridtjof "Tim" Flannery (born 28 January 1956) is an Australian mammalogist, palaeontologist,environmentalist and global warming activist. He was the Chief Commissioner of the Climate Commission, a Federal Government body providing information on climate change to the Australian public. On 23 September 2013 Flannery announced that he would join other sacked commissioners to form the independent Climate Council, that would be funded by the community.

Tim Flannery is currently a Professorial Fellow at the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, University of Melbourne.

Professor Flannery was named Australian of the Year in 2007 and previously, until mid-2013, was a professor atMacquarie University and held the Panasonic Chair in Environmental Sustainability.^[2] He is also chairman of theCopenhagen Climate Council, an international climate change awareness group.^[3] His sometimes controversial views on shutting down conventional coal-fired power stations for electricity generation in the medium term are frequently cited in the media.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery

Do your own research from now on.

[up2u2]

I noticed Tim Flannery involved in that article. Very credible guy. Not much he doesn't know about GW / CC. Yes an Aussie has a huge exclusive estate on the Hawkesbury River near Sydney.

[pitrevie]

1. From the Occupy.com link provided in the post you quoted:

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

THE ROAD FROM PARIS: HOW TO FINANCE A TRILLION-DOLLAR CLIMATE CHANGE TRANSITION

TUE, 2/9/2016 - BY DANNY KENNEDY

- See more at: http://www.occupy.com/article/road-paris-how-finance-trillion-dollar-climate-change-transition#sthash.3XzeY211.dpuf

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

2. From the Guardian link provided in the post you quoted:

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

"The cost of building the proposed infrastructure in Antarctica is very difficult to estimate, but in today’s world is likely to be huge. Rough cost estimates of up to a trillion dollars might be conservative. But technologies and cost structures change, and with the project unlikely to be seriously considered before 2050, the situation may then be very different. "

The link...again... http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/nov/20/climate-crisis-future-brighter-tim-flannery

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

Really interesting article. Shows how resourceful humans can be when focused on a problem. Hadn't heard of some of those solutions to addressing Fossil Fuel pollution. Scrubbing CO2 out of the atmosphere and storing it in the Antarctic is an interesting idea. The price tag shows why nations forming agreements and alliances is crucially important. Although I think companies who make trillions of dollars in profits from Fossil Fuel pollution should pay for the cleanup. It is typical isn't it. Corporations are happy to take the profits but when it comes to cleaning up the mess they make that cost is passed onto the public to pay for. Privatise the profits socialise the losses. Maybe time to annex some of the Fossil Fuel polluters profits to pay for the cleanup.

Since we wasted trillions of dollars with the invasion of Iraq you would not think anyone would be that concerned spending it on something that might actually benefit mankind. However these are just futuristic articles written by journalists and other interested parties. What I was asking is where are the scientists who are claiming that it will cost trillions of dollars to fix this problem? Its the sort of stuff that climate deniers always come up with just like those that denied the harmful affects of lead in petrol, cigarette smoking and any other public health issue you can think of. It will cost too much it will wreck out economy if we do it, it will put us at an economic disadvantage as nobody else will do it the list of do nothing excuses is endless and always wrong. The pattern is always the same, first deny the scientific evidence.

" What I was asking is where are the scientists who are claiming that it will cost trillions of dollars to fix this problem?"

Following are the CV's for the authors of the two linked articles. They seem to be recognized by the media as experts, even though they might not have the educational qualifications you require for proof.

They are both Aussies, which should be all the proof you need to believe they know everything.

Danny Kennedy (born February 24, 1971)^[1] is a clean-technology entrepreneur,^[2] an environmental activist,^[3] and the author of the book Rooftop Revolution: How Solar Power Can Save Our Economy—and Our Planet—from Dirty Energy (2012). Kennedy serves as managing director of the California Clean Energy Fund, an non-profite dedicated to optimiing the clean energy transition. He co-founded Sungevity, a rapidly growing residential solar power company,^[3]and Powerhouse, the primer solar incubator in Oakland. While at Sungevity, Kennedy won a Planet Forward Innovator of the Year award^[4] from the PBS program Planet Forward.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Kennedy_(environmentalist)

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

and

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

Timothy Fridtjof "Tim" Flannery (born 28 January 1956) is an Australian mammalogist, palaeontologist,environmentalist and global warming activist. He was the Chief Commissioner of the Climate Commission, a Federal Government body providing information on climate change to the Australian public. On 23 September 2013 Flannery announced that he would join other sacked commissioners to form the independent Climate Council, that would be funded by the community.

Tim Flannery is currently a Professorial Fellow at the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, University of Melbourne.

Professor Flannery was named Australian of the Year in 2007 and previously, until mid-2013, was a professor atMacquarie University and held the Panasonic Chair in Environmental Sustainability.^[2] He is also chairman of theCopenhagen Climate Council, an international climate change awareness group.^[3] His sometimes controversial views on shutting down conventional coal-fired power stations for electricity generation in the medium term are frequently cited in the media.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery

Do your own research from now on.

You appear to have misunderstood what I was asking. Since these people who write these scientific papers are all doing it so that they can participate in these trillions of dollars, then who are they. I presume Muller a former climate skeptic who when he and his team looked into this in depth and came to the conclusion that global warming was happening and it was man made must have been the recipient of this largesse. It also appears that the overwhelming majority of scientists who have come to the same conclusion have done so for the same reason. Apparently in every industrialized country in the world every academy of science endorses the global warming conspiracy and are writing papers in order to share in some trillion dollar bonanza. I assume Exxon when they finally admitted that they had known about man made global warming for some forty years and had now decided that they would no longer continue to deny it must also have some stake in this.

They are faking the science this is the infantile view being put forward. In other words the science is not only wrong but deliberately faked and no such consensus exists.

However as I have said previously in all such cases the method is the same, first deny the science, then follow that up by making outrageous and unsubstantiated claims.

Edited April 20, 2016 by pitrevie

[RickBradford]

I noticed Tim Flannery involved in that article. Very credible guy. Not much he doesn't know about GW / CC. Yes an Aussie has a huge exclusive estate on the Hawkesbury River near Sydney.

He's not worried about rising sea levels, then.

Flannery is the guy who told the Australian government, back in 2007, that eastern Australia would never -- that is, never again -- see sufficient rain to fill the dams.

Result 1: Several states spent billions of dollars on desalination plants

Result 2: Australian rainfall returned to normal (as it has always done). Desalination plants expensively mothballed.

Worse than his wretched science is his distaste for the democratic process and free speech. His 2005 book, The Weather Makers, calls everyone who disagrees with him "liars", "crackpots", and "propagandists".

My favourite bit is when he declares: "Skepticism is an indispensable element in scientific inquiry, but when the intention is to mislead rather than clarify, we have not skepticism but deceit."

(Insert Russian accent here): Yes, we have freedom of speech, comrade. But those who criticize the Kremlin are deceptive counter-revolutionaries (accent off).

He is the classic well-educated Green/Leftie. Lip service gets paid to the right things, but anyone straying from the party line is peremptorily dismissed as a bad person with bad motives who deserves to be silenced and ignored.

And for a very good reason; who wouldn't want a $180,000-a-year part-time advisory job to Government? And who wouldn't want to acquire two luxury properties on the prime location that is the Hawkesbury?

[up2u2]

lol yep you will get short shrift from Timothy if you crap on about Climate Denier clap trap. He doesn't have much time for them. I don't really blame him having to put up with their drivel day in day out. You'd have to pay me considerably more than 180K by a factor of 100 times before I could put up with them. Deserves every penny he makes and more.

[RickBradford]

Deserves every penny he makes and more.

Too bad, then, because they handed him his hat in 2013.

[chiang mai]

I noticed Tim Flannery involved in that article. Very credible guy. Not much he doesn't know about GW / CC. Yes an Aussie has a huge exclusive estate on the Hawkesbury River near Sydney.

He's not worried about rising sea levels, then.

Flannery is the guy who told the Australian government, back in 2007, that eastern Australia would never -- that is, never again -- see sufficient rain to fill the dams.

Result 1: Several states spent billions of dollars on desalination plants

Result 2: Australian rainfall returned to normal (as it has always done). Desalination plants expensively mothballed.

Worse than his wretched science is his distaste for the democratic process and free speech. His 2005 book, The Weather Makers, calls everyone who disagrees with him "liars", "crackpots", and "propagandists".

My favourite bit is when he declares: "Skepticism is an indispensable element in scientific inquiry, but when the intention is to mislead rather than clarify, we have not skepticism but deceit."

(Insert Russian accent here): Yes, we have freedom of speech, comrade. But those who criticize the Kremlin are deceptive counter-revolutionaries (accent off).

He is the classic well-educated Green/Leftie. Lip service gets paid to the right things, but anyone straying from the party line is peremptorily dismissed as a bad person with bad motives who deserves to be silenced and ignored.

And for a very good reason; who wouldn't want a $180,000-a-year part-time advisory job to Government? And who wouldn't want to acquire two luxury properties on the prime location that is the Hawkesbury?

That rainfall may have, I repeat may have, temporarily returned to normal but oops, looks like you just lost the Barrier Reef in the process! Seems he was right about the bigger picture but didn't get all the parts entirely correct. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/19/great-barrier-reef-damage-weve-never-seen-anything-like-this-bef/

Edited April 20, 2016 by chiang mai

[pitrevie]

Deserves every penny he makes and more.

Too bad, then, because they handed him his hat in 2013.

Perhaps you would like me to give you some quotes from Lord Christopher Monkton a prominent climate denier a man who has lectured extensively in Australia but whose lectures are riddled with lies and distortions. He even lies about his membership of the House of Lords as he did when he appeared before a congressional committee in the USA and when asked the same thing during an Australian lecture.

[up2u2]

Deserves every penny he makes and more.

Too bad, then, because they handed him his hat in 2013.

Yes a newly elected Right Wing Conservative government backed by the Big and of town and funded by Fossil Fuel polluters closed down his entire department. Nothing new there.

[Scott]

A post in violation of Fair Use Policy has been removed. Please only quote the first 3 sentences and then a link to the remainder of the article.