UN: delegates set to sign historic climate change deal

[thaibeachlovers]

Therefore, Mr Stillbornagain, correct me if I'm wrong, melting sea ice should have no effect on sea levels, e.g. half fill a glass with water, top up to the top with ice, when that floating ice melts there will be no change in the water level in the glass. OK, but not sure about the Greenland ice. The Southern ice-cap is a different story and as you say the ice sheets keep expanding and retreating on a regular basis.

Not sure about Greenland? In Greenland the glaciers are retreating rapidly. Where do you think that water goes? Into the ocean. What exactly are you not sure about? And it's not only Greenland. All around the world the glaciers are in retreat. All that water flowing into the sea. And not just that. The oceans are getting warmer. As the oceans get warmer, the water expands in volume. It's called thermal expansion.

And what's more, why are the glaciers in retreat all around the world? Is it because

a) the world is getting colder

b. the world is staying the same temperature

c) the world is getting warmer

I know the struggle, stillbornagain. Sometimes it feels like we're talking to first graders.

Even if I didn't believe the vast majority of scientists who are studying these things, I would still be convinced of a warming planet, when I hear first hand accounts from people who live and travel at/near the poles, including Greenland and mountainous regions (Alps, Himalaya's, Andes, Rockies, Sierra Nevada, etc). Without exception, those folks are all telling stories of melting/retreating ice and warming trends. There's no reason for them to lie.

Hmmmm. The snow level in New Zealand has been retreating since at least the mid 70s when there were probably billions less people, and a lot less industry, so lets not blame present situation.

If in fact CC is caused by people, then it would be logical to reduce the number of people polluting the planet, but I guarantee that in the new treaty there is nary a mention of population reduction.

It is for that reason I give this latest manifestation of bureaucracy run amok no credence at all.

[thaibeachlovers]

Your use of "right wing" is wrong and "left wing" is correct shows your political agenda and totally ignores the fact that 2 of the countries/governments that have caused the most environmental damage are left wing i.e. communist. Your arguments would be more believable if you dropped the obvious politics.

Communism could be considered "right wing" depending on the prism it's viewed from. Perhaps liberal and conservative are better words to use in this context. I consider 'right wing' to signify non-pliable, stuck-in-old-patterns, similar to conservatives. Liberal thinking is pliable, open to new concepts. Liberals are usually, but not always, lefties. But all that is semantics. It's the language that keeps peoples' heads stuck in the mud.

Alternative and relatively clean ways to generate electricity/power are being refined weekly. Personally, I like concentrated solar. PV solar is ok (and I use it) but Concentrated is better at large/municipal scale. Thailand hasn't figured that out yet. It's got some PV arrays, and that's commendable, but hopefully in the coming decades, Thais will appreciate better solar methods. Needless to say, Thais aren't doing any vanguard research, so they will have to rely on farang findings. Tonopah in California now has the world's largest functional concentrated solar plant. It uses molten salt, and has figured a way to keep power generating for many days of no sun. California is also at the forefront of storing energy by using compressed air.

There are other very promising developments with alternatives to coal/nuclear/fossil fuels, but all innovations are coming out of Europe, Australia/NZ, and N.America. Asians are behind the curve by about 20 years. Plus, when they do install farang innovations, they'll have to (or should) pay royalties to farang innovators/inventors. Ha ha, we know how well that would work, eh?

As for the migrant crisis being mainly due to people fleeing drought affected areas, oops and I thought it was because of conflict and chances to earn more money. All because of over-population.

As we know, there are several reasons for mass migrations. Drought is one of the main ones. Look at where the immigrants are coming from - who are streaming into Europe: the M.East and N.Africa, also Pakistan, Afghanistan, and NE Africa and Saharan regions. All are experiencing crippling drought of Biblical dimensions. Every time you see a photo of the Middle east, do you ever see any forests or green fields? Never. You see sand and rubble, with maybe a sad little dried succulent, if you're lucky. Farmers in those regions can't even grow drought-tolerant crops like pomegrantes or dates, ....it's getting so bad. What doesn't die from drought, will get eaten by skinny little goats with ribs showing. Even weeds won't grow in those regions. Most of the migrants are desperate to get to Europe because they have a chance of surviving there. Europe still has green grass and trees. It also has jobs, welfare, and welcoming people. the opposite, for example, of places like the Arabian Peninsula or Algeria, which is right next door. Too bad some of the kids of migrants will grow up to blow up their hosts, but that's another topic.

Don't include NZ in your examples. I'm in NZ now and they are doing sod all in a practical way to combat CC. Still building bigger roads and selling loads of cars instead of building electric commuter railways. They did electrify the Auckland commuter railways recently, but I'm sure that wasn't anything to do with CC.

Meanwhile, people are rushing to buy as many gadgets and big tvs as possible.

[boomerangutang]

I wouldn't doubt there are many Kiwis who are doing things which contribute to improving the environment. I almost migrated to Freemantle peninsula on the N. island in the early 1980's to see about joining a back-to-nature commune there. I couldn't get a one-way plane ticket from Bkk at the time (I'm not a Brit subject), so opted on a different tangent.

It's interesting, the deniers might read several long paragraphs written by people like me (who like and respect science), yet they're fixated on finding one little item which may be questionable Re; TBL, he latches on to a mention of NZ and proceeds to go on about how they don't give a hoot about CC. Yet, it was TBL him/herself who first mentioned NZ. More importantly, by not commenting on the 99% of what someone like me wrote, it's assumed the responder agrees and/or can't find anything to tear apart.

Here's a hint for posters like that: Instead of trying so hard to find one little item to try an tear apart, how about acknowledging things (written by others) which one can agree with. Perhaps not 100%, but a lukewarm agreement is better than nothing. For example, when I write about observing that ALL folks residing or working in polar regions and Greenland are concerned about (and see the very real effects of) global warming. It's an issue that can be acknowledged. These are people who spend 24 hours of each day/night, sometimes 365.25 days/yr directly in regions which are experiencing dramatic changes in temps. I respect their observations. How about you?

[borborygmus]

Just how do they expect to slow the imaginary warming rate? More money more meetings? Never before in the history of the human race has there been so many idiots clumped together in one place. If they really wanted to do something for the planet earth they should get tough on the Asian countries burning off crop stubble and creating the haze that covers vast areas every year. This would make more sense. Maybe after they all sign this so called deal to slow climate warming they could start a new agreement to stop all volcanoe's errupting and creating more damage to the climate than CO2 ever does. Maybe they should go back to school and study just what CO2 does. It supports life and has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. Really stupid politicians, maybe they can start WW111 as it seems they are so stupid its quite on the cards.

Volcanoes cause Global cooling not warming. They emit trillions of tons of aerosol particulates into the upper Troposphere that reflect sunlight back into space. Burning of crops stubble produces particulate matter into the lower sea level atmosphere (where we breath). Nothing really to do with CO2 levels and is regional so requires a regional solution not a Global Solution. Maybe you need to go back to school. CO2 is one of the Greenhouse gasses that contribute an increase in Earth's temperature by +30⁰c without it we freeze solid with too much it becomes a pollutant and elevates Earth's temperatures where most of the human race would not survive. Although CO2 is a key element in plant photosynthesis Earth's vegetation can only absorb natural occurring CO2 plus a small proportion of man made CO2. CO2 introduced by man burning Fossil Fuels is easily identifiable and quantifiable as it has a different Carbon14 Isotope attached.

It would seem the stupid politicians may have a better grasp of the actual basic science on Global Warming / Climate Change than you appear to demonstrate.

If politicians actually believed it was possible to reverse CC they would do something to change it. As they have not, and are not going to do anything that will change CC ( which is impossible anyway ) they obviously do not believe it can be changed.

There is a difference between reducing pollution, recycling and building renewable energy sources and reducing CC. Those are an admirable goal and would make life better for all, but will do ZERO to stop CC.

If Obama believed in the rhetoric he'd stop using AF1, and if governments believed in it they'd stop private cars being sold, stop mass air travel and build nuclear power stations and electric railways.

Its pretty clear volcanism is variously responsible for both warming and cooling; it just depends (example: difference between submerged eruptions or not). There is some pretty clear evidence of drastic warming secondary to or concurrent with exception volcanism triggering the younger dryas/bringing us out of the younger dryas. At first glance I agree, seems like heating only. Its not. In any event, as an update on 28 April 2016, it continues to be clear the science does not remotely support the political agenda of "Climate Change."

The current highest estimate for volcanic emission of CO2 is around 600 million tons per year. That does sound like a lot until you compare it to human generated CO2: 29 billion tons per year. So even using the highest estimate volcanic emissions of CO2 are just slightly higher than 2% of total yearly emissions of CO2. And remember, that 2% is based on the highest estimate which is something of an outlier.

What's more, new evidence is emerging that humans pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere may actually be increasing volcanic activity. In areas that are heavily fraught with glaciers, like iceland, the weight of the glaciers actually keeps the hot rocks below solid. As warming increases, glaciers melt and the pressure lessens. As the pressure lessens those hot rocks turn into magma which is what lava is called when it hasn't yet emerged to the surface. More pools of magma means more likelihood of volcanism.

http://www.wired.com/2013/01/rising-sea-levels-volcanoes-eruptions/

Edited April 29, 2016 by borborygmus

[eliotness]

I think we have got way off track guys. The thread was about the UN delegates signing a document to say they will take steps to address climate change.

I don't think anyone disputes the climate is changing, heck it always has done from the beginning of time.

The debate is 1. Whether the whole or part of the current change is due to man's activities;

and 2. Whether anything significant will be done by the politicians who signed the "Accord".

For me, 1. "Part" is more than likely, but to quantify the scale of that effect is open to partisan opinions -on both sides. For 2. Not a cat in hells chance

[borborygmus]

I think we have got way off track guys. The thread was about the UN delegates signing a document to say they will take steps to address climate change.

I don't think anyone disputes the climate is changing, heck it always has done from the beginning of time.

The debate is 1. Whether the whole or part of the current change is due to man's activities;

and 2. Whether anything significant will be done by the politicians who signed the "Accord".

For me, 1. "Part" is more than likely, but to quantify the scale of that effect is open to partisan opinions -on both sides. For 2. Not a cat in hells chance

If what you mean by partisan opinions refers to political orientation, then no, the degree of climate change is not open to partisan opinions. There may be differences of opinions among scientists, but they are not driven by political opinions, but by what gaps there still are in the science. And it wouldn't necessarily be "both sides" but any number of sides depending upon the issue in contention.

Edited April 29, 2016 by borborygmus

[eliotness]

Sorry Borborygmus, I obviously need to clarify that point about "partisan". OK the climate is changing, as I said before it always has done, for millions of years. I don't think that can be disputed. The fact that man is polluting the planet too is beyond dispute. Man has to live, so even with the best will in the world man will contribute CO2 to the atmosphere and with the earth's human population estimated (by scientists) to grow to over 12 billion by 2100, that contribution, just by breathing, cooking etc will continue to grow. Where the partisan bit comes in is how much of that contribution we can reduce and if so will it have a significant effect on the changing climate. Politics only really comes into it when governments slap "green taxes" on fuels etc.

[up2u2]

Just how do they expect to slow the imaginary warming rate? More money more meetings? Never before in the history of the human race has there been so many idiots clumped together in one place. If they really wanted to do something for the planet earth they should get tough on the Asian countries burning off crop stubble and creating the haze that covers vast areas every year. This would make more sense. Maybe after they all sign this so called deal to slow climate warming they could start a new agreement to stop all volcanoe's errupting and creating more damage to the climate than CO2 ever does. Maybe they should go back to school and study just what CO2 does. It supports life and has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. Really stupid politicians, maybe they can start WW111 as it seems they are so stupid its quite on the cards.

Volcanoes cause Global cooling not warming. They emit trillions of tons of aerosol particulates into the upper Troposphere that reflect sunlight back into space. Burning of crops stubble produces particulate matter into the lower sea level atmosphere (where we breath). Nothing really to do with CO2 levels and is regional so requires a regional solution not a Global Solution. Maybe you need to go back to school. CO2 is one of the Greenhouse gasses that contribute an increase in Earth's temperature by +30⁰c without it we freeze solid with too much it becomes a pollutant and elevates Earth's temperatures where most of the human race would not survive. Although CO2 is a key element in plant photosynthesis Earth's vegetation can only absorb natural occurring CO2 plus a small proportion of man made CO2. CO2 introduced by man burning Fossil Fuels is easily identifiable and quantifiable as it has a different Carbon14 Isotope attached.

It would seem the stupid politicians may have a better grasp of the actual basic science on Global Warming / Climate Change than you appear to demonstrate.

If politicians actually believed it was possible to reverse CC they would do something to change it. As they have not, and are not going to do anything that will change CC ( which is impossible anyway ) they obviously do not believe it can be changed.

There is a difference between reducing pollution, recycling and building renewable energy sources and reducing CC. Those are an admirable goal and would make life better for all, but will do ZERO to stop CC.

If Obama believed in the rhetoric he'd stop using AF1, and if governments believed in it they'd stop private cars being sold, stop mass air travel and build nuclear power stations and electric railways.

Its pretty clear volcanism is variously responsible for both warming and cooling; it just depends (example: difference between submerged eruptions or not). There is some pretty clear evidence of drastic warming secondary to or concurrent with exception volcanism triggering the younger dryas/bringing us out of the younger dryas. At first glance I agree, seems like heating only. Its not. In any event, as an update on 28 April 2016, it continues to be clear the science does not remotely support the political agenda of "Climate Change."

The Younger Dryas had nothing to do with volcanic activity it was to do with warm water ocean currents. The event turned up in Proxy Data from the Vostok Ice Cores. The Climate Change with the Younger Dryas was mostly regional rather than Global.

Volcanoes erupting into the atmosphere emit catostrophic amounts of ash and aerosols in the the upper troposphere essentially reflecting solar irradiation back into space and the Earth cools. The last mass extinction was caused by massive, massive, massive continual lava flows from directly beneath the frozen supercontinent Pangaea. It flowed up onto the ice in unimaginable flows of lava melting the supercontinent and into the oceans where it began to superheat the oceans. This eventually thawed the icy slurry of Methane and released it into the atmosphere. At first the Earth cooled Globally due to the ash and aerosols in the Upper Troposphere but once that settled to sea level the Earth was exposed to the Sun's full solar irradiation and the atmosphere saturated with the Methane Greenhouse gas 10 times more Greenhouse active than CO2 the temperatures took off elevating the Global temperatures and killing just about every living thing. We didn't turn up for another 200M years.

Currently the volcanic activity globally contributes to brief spikes of global cooling not warming because they are not massive (and I mean MASSIVE) lava flows.

The science on GW / CC has no political agenda other than to present the results of scientific research for peer review and to then be published. Scientists couldn't give a rats what politicians do.

[RickBradford]

The science on GW / CC has no political agenda other than to present the results of scientific research for peer review and to then be published. Scientists couldn't give a rats what politicians do.

James Hansen (formerly NASA’s chief climate scientist, and director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies for 30 years) recently gave a TED talk titled "Why I Must Speak Out About Climate Change." He has also been arrested, looking like an Amish farmer down on his luck, in front of the White House while on various protests, and led away in handcuffs..

Michael "Piltdown" Mann (Director of Penn State Earth System Science Center) spoke at AGU 2015 on the topic "If You See Something, Say Something" on why scientists need to speak up more to influence policy matters. That was also the title of an article he wrote for the New York Times, in which he talks about a "virulent strain of anti-science [that] infects the halls of Congress" and that "[t]here is a great cost to society if scientists fail to participate in the larger conversation"

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the founding Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, and also the chief climate advisor to the Pope, no less, has authored several treatises calling for World Government, a Global Council, and a Planetary Court for punishing people who disagree with him.

So whereas it may be correct to say that real scientists don't care what politicians do, climate scientists obviously care a great deal.

[thaibeachlovers]

The science on GW / CC has no political agenda other than to present the results of scientific research for peer review and to then be published. Scientists couldn't give a rats what politicians do.

James Hansen (formerly NASA’s chief climate scientist, and director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies for 30 years) recently gave a TED talk titled "Why I Must Speak Out About Climate Change." He has also been arrested, looking like an Amish farmer down on his luck, in front of the White House while on various protests, and led away in handcuffs..

Michael "Piltdown" Mann (Director of Penn State Earth System Science Center) spoke at AGU 2015 on the topic "If You See Something, Say Something" on why scientists need to speak up more to influence policy matters. That was also the title of an article he wrote for the New York Times, in which he talks about a "virulent strain of anti-science [that] infects the halls of Congress" and that "[t]here is a great cost to society if scientists fail to participate in the larger conversation"

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the founding Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, and also the chief climate advisor to the Pope, no less, has authored several treatises calling for World Government, a Global Council, and a Planetary Court for punishing people who disagree with him.

So whereas it may be correct to say that real scientists don't care what politicians do, climate scientists obviously care a great deal.

Governments are looking forward to making vast amounts of money from climate related taxes. They are not going to allow mere scientists to rock the boat. No wonder people despise politicians!

[borborygmus]

The science on GW / CC has no political agenda other than to present the results of scientific research for peer review and to then be published. Scientists couldn't give a rats what politicians do.

James Hansen (formerly NASA’s chief climate scientist, and director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies for 30 years) recently gave a TED talk titled "Why I Must Speak Out About Climate Change." He has also been arrested, looking like an Amish farmer down on his luck, in front of the White House while on various protests, and led away in handcuffs..

Michael "Piltdown" Mann (Director of Penn State Earth System Science Center) spoke at AGU 2015 on the topic "If You See Something, Say Something" on why scientists need to speak up more to influence policy matters. That was also the title of an article he wrote for the New York Times, in which he talks about a "virulent strain of anti-science [that] infects the halls of Congress" and that "[t]here is a great cost to society if scientists fail to participate in the larger conversation"

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the founding Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, and also the chief climate advisor to the Pope, no less, has authored several treatises calling for World Government, a Global Council, and a Planetary Court for punishing people who disagree with him.

So whereas it may be correct to say that real scientists don't care what politicians do, climate scientists obviously care a great deal.

I agree that up2u's quote was at best poorly worded. But the question is do climate scientists care because of the results of their research or despite the results? As has been cited here before, Dr. Richard Muller was a prominent physicist who questioned the temperature readings that climate scientists claimed strongly supported global warming. The Heartland Institute (the Koch brothers) funded him so he could assemble a dream team to reexamine climate scientists' use or misuse of this data. And what were the results? Muller's team found that their results exactly matched what climate scientists were saying. Do you have any idea of how astronomical the odds are against this being a coincidence? And what did the Hearland Institute do with these results. They ignored them.

What people like you posit is a huge conspiracy of maybe 25,000 scientists all around the world. This is plain nuts.

[up2u2]

The science on GW / CC has no political agenda other than to present the results of scientific research for peer review and to then be published. Scientists couldn't give a rats what politicians do.

James Hansen (formerly NASA’s chief climate scientist, and director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies for 30 years) recently gave a TED talk titled "Why I Must Speak Out About Climate Change." He has also been arrested, looking like an Amish farmer down on his luck, in front of the White House while on various protests, and led away in handcuffs..

Michael "Piltdown" Mann (Director of Penn State Earth System Science Center) spoke at AGU 2015 on the topic "If You See Something, Say Something" on why scientists need to speak up more to influence policy matters. That was also the title of an article he wrote for the New York Times, in which he talks about a "virulent strain of anti-science [that] infects the halls of Congress" and that "[t]here is a great cost to society if scientists fail to participate in the larger conversation"

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the founding Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, and also the chief climate advisor to the Pope, no less, has authored several treatises calling for World Government, a Global Council, and a Planetary Court for punishing people who disagree with him.

So whereas it may be correct to say that real scientists don't care what politicians do, climate scientists obviously care a great deal.

The SCIENCE on GW / CC has no political agenda. Should scientists speak out in defence of the science on GW / CC? Sure what is wrong with that. Should scientists be critical of misinformation and propaganda and convenient 'sherry picking' funded by the greedy fossil fuel industry to undermine public confidence in the science on GW / CC. Yes they should.

Should a scientist ever knowingly and fraudulently present scientific research that fits a political agenda rather than the actual scientific evidence. No they should not. That is scientific fraud and in some countries is a criminal offence resulting in a jail term and in all countries the end of their scientific career.

Exxon is one of the main funders of GW / CC misinformation. It has been shown that Exxon is well aware of the science on GW / CC and understand their product does in fact contribute to GW / CC. My view is if Exxon decides to continue funding the misinformation on GW / CC they should be held financially liable for the resulting inaction and damage caused by GW / CC. This is why Exxon is no longer publicly funding Climate Denier bloggsites but rather covertly funding them via bogus Right Wing 'Institutes' and 'Think Tanks' where donations are not traceable. Personally I would have no problem seizing ALL their assets and winding up their company and using the money to compensate for the damage their product has done. You knowingly harm someone through your negligence you should pay.

[borborygmus]

The science on GW / CC has no political agenda other than to present the results of scientific research for peer review and to then be published. Scientists couldn't give a rats what politicians do.

James Hansen (formerly NASA’s chief climate scientist, and director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies for 30 years) recently gave a TED talk titled "Why I Must Speak Out About Climate Change." He has also been arrested, looking like an Amish farmer down on his luck, in front of the White House while on various protests, and led away in handcuffs..

Michael "Piltdown" Mann (Director of Penn State Earth System Science Center) spoke at AGU 2015 on the topic "If You See Something, Say Something" on why scientists need to speak up more to influence policy matters. That was also the title of an article he wrote for the New York Times, in which he talks about a "virulent strain of anti-science [that] infects the halls of Congress" and that "[t]here is a great cost to society if scientists fail to participate in the larger conversation"

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the founding Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, and also the chief climate advisor to the Pope, no less, has authored several treatises calling for World Government, a Global Council, and a Planetary Court for punishing people who disagree with him.

So whereas it may be correct to say that real scientists don't care what politicians do, climate scientists obviously care a great deal.

I read what Schellenhuber wrote about having a daydream about a planetary court. But I can find absolutely no evidence that he called for making it to punish people who disagree with him. I'm sure you wouldn't stoop so low as to make that up so can you please cite a reliable source?

Edited April 30, 2016 by borborygmus

[RickBradford]

^^^

What people like you posit is a huge conspiracy of maybe 25,000 scientists all around the world. This is plain nuts.

I'm sure you wouldn't stoop so low as to make that up so can you please cite a post where I have ever asserted there is a conspiracy among scientists?

[borborygmus]

^^^

What people like you posit is a huge conspiracy of maybe 25,000 scientists all around the world. This is plain nuts.

I'm sure you wouldn't stoop so low as to make that up so can you please cite a post where I have ever asserted there is a conspiracy among scientists?

By what mechanism other than conspiracy would 25,000 scientists not disclose the truth?

And you still haven't answered where you acquired the info that the Planetary Court was going to punish people who disagree with him.

Edited April 30, 2016 by borborygmus

[up2u2]

RickBradford

Posted 2015-10-15 17:23:18

There you go. The Climate Denier Echo Chamber on full tilt.

And there you go. The Climate Alarmist Conspiracy Theory Echo Chamber on full tilt.

'Dark money', indeed. Sounds like something out of Dora the Explorer.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/858072-ignore-pope-on-climate-says-us-republican-marsha-blackburn/?p=9967521

It would seem you believe GW / CC is a 'Conspiracy Theory' as you elude to here RB. Are the scientists just all part of the "Conspiracy Theory Echo Chamber on full tilt"?

[RickBradford]

^^^

What people like you posit is a huge conspiracy of maybe 25,000 scientists all around the world. This is plain nuts.

I'm sure you wouldn't stoop so low as to make that up so can you please cite a post where I have ever asserted there is a conspiracy among scientists?

By what mechanism other than conspiracy would 25,000 scientists not disclose the truth?

And you still haven't answered where you acquired the info that the Planetary Court was going to punish people who disagree with him.

Well, if you want to call it a conspiracy, go ahead. That's your call, not mine.

I have never called it a conspiracy, because I don't believe it is one, any more than the Maryknoll Sisters or the Arirang Festival is a conspiracy.

Think about it. If it was a conspiracy, it would be by far the least effective one in history, making Guy Fawkes look like a master planner. Over 20 years, hundreds of billions of dollars p*ssed away, and still they can't achieve anything. How dumb is that?

EDIT: up2u2: You're out of your depth here. As even a cursory read of my post shows, I was pointing out (again) how absurd conspiracy theories are. Don't get carried away just because a search throws up some results.

Edited April 30, 2016 by RickBradford

[up2u2]

Well, if you want to call it a conspiracy, go ahead. That's your call, not mine.

I have never called it a conspiracy, because I don't believe it is one, any more than the Maryknoll Sisters or the Arirang Festival is a conspiracy.

Think about it. If it was a conspiracy, it would be by far the least effective one in history, making Guy Fawkes look like a master planner. Over 20 years, hundreds of millions of dollars p*ssed away, and still they can't achieve anything. How dumb is that?

EDIT: up2u2: You're out of your depth here. As even a cursory read of my post shows, I was pointing out (again) how absurd conspiracy theories are. Don't get carried away just because a search throws up some results.

It is far more than 20 years GW has been researched for some 120 years. Or is that all just part of some climate alarmist conspiracy theory echo chamber?

It would seem the scientific research has achieved a 99.996% consensus and an historic climate change deal.

RB eventually you have to be a little honest and admit you are on the wrong side of history. Hey it happens no big deal.

[RickBradford]

It would seem the scientific research has achieved a 99.996% consensus and an historic climate change deal.

If it comforts you to swallow that, fine. It's certainly easier than thinking.

[thaibeachlovers]

Well, if you want to call it a conspiracy, go ahead. That's your call, not mine.

I have never called it a conspiracy, because I don't believe it is one, any more than the Maryknoll Sisters or the Arirang Festival is a conspiracy.

Think about it. If it was a conspiracy, it would be by far the least effective one in history, making Guy Fawkes look like a master planner. Over 20 years, hundreds of millions of dollars p*ssed away, and still they can't achieve anything. How dumb is that?

EDIT: up2u2: You're out of your depth here. As even a cursory read of my post shows, I was pointing out (again) how absurd conspiracy theories are. Don't get carried away just because a search throws up some results.

It is far more than 20 years GW has been researched for some 120 years. Or is that all just part of some climate alarmist conspiracy theory echo chamber?

It would seem the scientific research has achieved a 99.996% consensus and an historic climate change deal.

RB eventually you have to be a little honest and admit you are on the wrong side of history. Hey it happens no big deal.

Perhaps historic, but nothing effective will come of it. Does anyone believe that all countries will cease using oil motivated vehicles and stop mass air travel? If they don't, it's not going to make any difference in either the long or short term. How many additional motor vehicles come into use every day- that's not going to change.

Is a single TV poster going to change their lifestyle- no AC, no car, no m'bike?

Perhaps Obama could show some leadership by mothballing AF1 and not travelling in massive convoys- dream on.

[eliotness]

Just a point to consider: has anyone worked out the "carbon emissions" from all the wars over the last 102 years. The amount of munitions expended has been huge. Maybe the greens should blame the military for the increase in CO2 rather than industry ! Remember, it was the same politicians who start wars that are now declaring they want to save the planet.

I laughed out loud when that party of "environmentalists" sailed from Australia to witness the vanishing southern ice cap and got stuck in an expanding ice sheet, so ironic ! It took 2 ice-breakers to free them ?

Munitions would have no impact on CO₂ levels.

Nothing unusual for ships to be trapped in ice flows. Your not going to start throwing snowballs around are you 'Senator Inhofe'

Are you really saying the manufacture of all the munitions and their use in all the 20th century wars had no effect on CO2 levels ? Wow that's one heck of an assumption, and then of course there's the 2 nuclear bombs + all the bomb tests by both right wing and left wing governments. As you are so "facts based" I would like to know which scientific papers you referenced to prove that assumption.

Sure it's not unusual for ships to be caught in ice-flows. My point was it was ironic that a team sent to observe retreating ice sheets got caught in an expanding one.

Why don't you research whether munitions effect CO₂ levels? Explosives are generally Nitrous based. Nuclear bombs are atomic based so I don't think they would effect CO₂ levels. I have never come across it being mentioned or referred too in scientific literature (as opposed too Denier bloggsites).

Not unusual for sea ice to shift on currents and wedge a ship and require icebreakers to come in and drag them out.

Your lack of basic science is astounding. The nuclear bombs vapourised any carbon based material. The fire-storms in WW2 burned all carbon based material. The manufacture of ordinance requires energy. I think you should read the ISO standard for life cycle analysis.

As for the ship full of climate warming supporters who got stuck, it wasn't just a shifting ice sheet as you say, it was a rapidly expanding ice sheet. As for it being not unusual, ok for 1 ice-breaker to help, but it took 2 and who pray tell bore the cost of that ?

[up2u2]

Perhaps historic, but nothing effective will come of it. Does anyone believe that all countries will cease using oil motivated vehicles and stop mass air travel? If they don't, it's not going to make any difference in either the long or short term. How many additional motor vehicles come into use every day- that's not going to change.

Is a single TV poster going to change their lifestyle- no AC, no car, no m'bike?

Perhaps Obama could show some leadership by mothballing AF1 and not travelling in massive convoys- dream on.

Well we could all sit around and wait till you come up with a solution.

What is it with you and Obama and Air Force 1? It is all you seem to rabbit on about as if that will address CO₂ pollution.

Grounding all planes, no a/c, motor vehicles or motorbikes would be a pretty foolish thing to do and the only people who seem to endorse this idiotic thinking is you and fellow climate deniers.

[up2u2]

It would seem the scientific research has achieved a 99.996% consensus and an historic climate change deal.

If it comforts you to swallow that, fine. It's certainly easier than thinking.

I did read the Extract on that Research Paper.

Why what did your research come up with? If you could present the Extract I would be interested in reading it.

[boomerangutang]

Deniers are using immature arguments of "all or nothing." An example goes something like this: "If you, tree hugger really believe humans are polluting the atmosphere, then you should stop using any contraption connected to internal combustion engines, and that includes stop using electricity, because it is sometimes produced by fossil fuels."

Here's are some more immature arguments by deniers: "Climate control agreements are never going to accomplish anything because......."

>>> it's too big of a topic. How can the activities of little ol' people affect something as vast as the Earth's surface?

>>> the scientists are only looking to enrich themselves with grants

>>> politicians will want to tax us into the poor house with carbon taxes

Most immature of all, is the argument that goes something like this; "no agreements are going to clean everything up and stop all pollution."

That's the 'all or nothing' type of logic I'd expect from a 5 year old. For sure, no agreement is going to entirely clean up the environment. To put it more maturely: Just getting the approx 200 nations of the world to agree on a big concept is a big deal. More importantly, the mature people are talking about DEGREES OF IMPROVEMENTS. Look at it this way:

Let's say you inherited a giant house with 350 rooms, and they're all dirty. You say you'd like to clean the house. Your cynical neighbor immediately tells you, "Yea sure, you're going to make the place spotless by tomorrow afternoon. What a joke!"

You get a crew with brooms and mops and tell the neighbor, "no, we're not going to attain complete perfection by tomorrow, but we're going to start, room by room. We may not even finish in a year, but every bit of cleaning we do, is an improvement. The longest journey begins with the first step."

As for deniers worried about wasted money and/or delegates taking jets to meetings. I don't like wasted money and people flying on jets who don't need to. However, if you want to talk about wasted money on meetings, or high salaries for professionals (climate scientists), you're worrying about a little nettle bush when next door there's a giant forest of sticker bushes and trees with spikes. Comparing the amount of wasted money by bureaucrats - to grants for climate scientists, is like comparing a sparkler with a barrel bomb. Get real.

[up2u2]

Your lack of basic science is astounding. The nuclear bombs vapourised any carbon based material. The fire-storms in WW2 burned all carbon based material. The manufacture of ordinance requires energy. I think you should read the ISO standard for life cycle analysis.

As for the ship full of climate warming supporters who got stuck, it wasn't just a shifting ice sheet as you say, it was a rapidly expanding ice sheet. As for it being not unusual, ok for 1 ice-breaker to help, but it took 2 and who pray tell bore the cost of that ?

What does a Nuclear Bomb 'vaporise' carbon based materials too?

Do you have any research on the GW effects of 'firestorms in WW2'.

Nothing unusual for a ship to get stuck in sea ice in the Antarctic and requiring possibly many attempts for Ice Breakers to get in and retrieve them. As the Antarctic melts MASSIVE ice sheets are carving off the mainland and are set adrift. So I don't think ships getting stuck in them is anything odd.

[up2u2]

Deniers are using immature arguments of "all or nothing." An example goes something like this: "If you, tree hugger really believe humans are polluting the atmosphere, then you should stop using any contraption connected to internal combustion engines, and that includes stop using electricity, because it is sometimes produced by fossil fuels."

Here's are some more immature arguments by deniers: "Climate control agreements are never going to accomplish anything because......."

>>> it's too big of a topic. How can the activities of little ol' people affect something as vast as the Earth's surface?

>>> the scientists are only looking to enrich themselves with grants

>>> politicians will want to tax us into the poor house with carbon taxes

Most immature of all, is the argument that goes something like this; "no agreements are going to clean everything up and stop all pollution."

That's the 'all or nothing' type of logic I'd expect from a 5 year old. For sure, no agreement is going to entirely clean up the environment. To put it more maturely: Just getting the approx 200 nations of the world to agree on a big concept is a big deal. More importantly, the mature people are talking about DEGREES OF IMPROVEMENTS. Look at it this way:

Let's say you inherited a giant house with 350 rooms, and they're all dirty. You say you'd like to clean the house. Your cynical neighbor immediately tells you, "Yea sure, you're going to make the place spotless by tomorrow afternoon. What a joke!"

You get a crew with brooms and mops and tell the neighbor, "no, we're not going to attain complete perfection by tomorrow, but we're going to start, room by room. We may not even finish in a year, but every bit of cleaning we do, is an improvement. The longest journey begins with the first step."

As for deniers worried about wasted money and/or delegates taking jets to meetings. I don't like wasted money and people flying on jets who don't need to. However, if you want to talk about wasted money on meetings, or high salaries for professionals (climate scientists), you're worrying about a little nettle bush when next door there's a giant forest of sticker bushes and trees with spikes. Comparing the amount of wasted money by bureaucrats - to grants for climate scientists, is like comparing a sparkler with a barrel bomb. Get real.

Yes very true Boomer. Don't forget the last desperate strategy of the Climate Denier 'Oh it is too late to do anything now'

[arjunadawn]

There is always going to be a small minority of people swayed by self interested propaganda. This type of misinformation strategy occurred with Tobacco and cancer, lead in paint, Ozone depletion etc. In the end the scientific evidence wins out. This has been a hard fought issue as the sheer wealth of the Fossil Fuel polluters and their ability to disseminate misinformation and propaganda and bribe / threaten governments they fund. The UN 'historic climate change deal' puts an end to all that. The course ahead is set.

The Fossil Fuel polluters themselves did not believe GW / CC was a hoax they knew quite well it was an eminent threat they simply wanted to stall the process of transition to clean energy for as long as they could and protect their profits. They have been very successful over the last 25 years. The sad thing really is the world could be a lot further down the track in addressing Fossil Fuel pollution. A lot of valuable time has been wasted.

What fascinates me is the small minority of people who embrace misinformation and self interested propaganda and are drawn to it like moths to a flame. When ALL the evidence is pointing in one direction one Fossil Fuel funded blogsite brings any semblance of rational thinking crashing down.

This agreement marks the beginning of a new and exciting future as clean energy Corporations are formed new technologies creating thousands of billionaires. There is no end to where this new direction will take us. A cleaner more sustainable planet will just be a small by-product. Polluting Fossil Fuel producers will reinvent themselves or fall by the wayside. Their supporters and promoters of their propaganda can please themselves.

Thank you for this response. I disagree with your conclusion but applaud your delivery. Really. As an aside, I think the fossil fuel industry is about as corrupt as any mafia. I cannot calculate the harm they do to the planet, their gross suppression of alternative energy sources, and the stranglehold they have on global politics... and war. I support most efforts to curb pollution. As much as I detest their poor stewardship I would caution that the entire modern world is built upon petro derivatives, let alone its energy uses. When/if success arrives, and the fossil fuel people are homeless, everyone else will be also.

"All the evidence" does not point to the conclusion climate change[rs] posit. Indeed, "all the[ir] information" is specially culled and manipulated to harvest their "Climate Change" argument; it still does not even achieve their goal. "All of the information" excludes "all" the largest contributors of climate change, and these are solar, galactic, and electromagnetic factors. In the end many like me would be more malleable if it were not for the politics that so obviously motivate the entire debacle. Still, thank you for your fair comments above.

Unfortunately for you it does. No scientific evidence supports your view.

Every day climate change secondary to humans is proven fraudulent. Its no longer necessary to even tease the data, its self evident. From the fraud to the manipulation to the threats from climate changers/leftists its apparent... climate change is a socialist ideology that has cloaked itself in the priesthood appearance of Science.

Climate Change secondary to humans is another Long March. Its populated by lefists, radicals, liberals,etc. The entire poison and its antidote is contrived by the selective application and withholding of funds. Every single day in the news there is more proof regarding the Political Ideology of Climate Change being delusion. Science? Its ubiquitous.

People might be more receptive to this delusion if it was not populated by angry brown shirts couched as concerned citizens. Its despotic/

[copa8]

Alternative and relatively clean ways to generate electricity/power are being refined weekly. Personally, I like concentrated solar. PV solar is ok (and I use it) but Concentrated is better at large/municipal scale. Thailand hasn't figured that out yet. It's got some PV arrays, and that's commendable, but hopefully in the coming decades, Thais will appreciate better solar methods. Needless to say, Thais aren't doing any vanguard research, so they will have to rely on farang findings. Tonopah in California now has the world's largest functional concentrated solar plant. It uses molten salt, and has figured a way to keep power generating for many days of no sun. California is also at the forefront of storing energy by using compressed air.

There are other very promising developments with alternatives to coal/nuclear/fossil fuels, but all innovations are coming out of Europe, Australia/NZ, and N.America. Asians are behind the curve by about 20 years. Plus, when they do install farang innovations, they'll have to (or should) pay royalties to farang innovators/inventors. Ha ha, we know how well that would work, eh?

"...so they will have to rely on farang findings."

Thailand hasn't figured it out yet, b/c it's still a developing country. Your farang findings are coming from developed economies with a lot more resources on hand.

"...but all innovations are coming out of Europe, Australia/NZ, and N.America."

Yes, without the white man, Asians, Africans, etc would still be living in the stone ages. Thank God, Allah, Buddha, Jehovah, Shiva for Europe, Australia/NZ & N. America or else humanity wouldn't have mastered fire, the wheel, Slap Chop, Twinkies, the internet, etc.

[borborygmus]

There is always going to be a small minority of people swayed by self interested propaganda. This type of misinformation strategy occurred with Tobacco and cancer, lead in paint, Ozone depletion etc. In the end the scientific evidence wins out. This has been a hard fought issue as the sheer wealth of the Fossil Fuel polluters and their ability to disseminate misinformation and propaganda and bribe / threaten governments they fund. The UN 'historic climate change deal' puts an end to all that. The course ahead is set.

The Fossil Fuel polluters themselves did not believe GW / CC was a hoax they knew quite well it was an eminent threat they simply wanted to stall the process of transition to clean energy for as long as they could and protect their profits. They have been very successful over the last 25 years. The sad thing really is the world could be a lot further down the track in addressing Fossil Fuel pollution. A lot of valuable time has been wasted.

What fascinates me is the small minority of people who embrace misinformation and self interested propaganda and are drawn to it like moths to a flame. When ALL the evidence is pointing in one direction one Fossil Fuel funded blogsite brings any semblance of rational thinking crashing down.

This agreement marks the beginning of a new and exciting future as clean energy Corporations are formed new technologies creating thousands of billionaires. There is no end to where this new direction will take us. A cleaner more sustainable planet will just be a small by-product. Polluting Fossil Fuel producers will reinvent themselves or fall by the wayside. Their supporters and promoters of their propaganda can please themselves.

Thank you for this response. I disagree with your conclusion but applaud your delivery. Really. As an aside, I think the fossil fuel industry is about as corrupt as any mafia. I cannot calculate the harm they do to the planet, their gross suppression of alternative energy sources, and the stranglehold they have on global politics... and war. I support most efforts to curb pollution. As much as I detest their poor stewardship I would caution that the entire modern world is built upon petro derivatives, let alone its energy uses. When/if success arrives, and the fossil fuel people are homeless, everyone else will be also.

"All the evidence" does not point to the conclusion climate change[rs] posit. Indeed, "all the[ir] information" is specially culled and manipulated to harvest their "Climate Change" argument; it still does not even achieve their goal. "All of the information" excludes "all" the largest contributors of climate change, and these are solar, galactic, and electromagnetic factors. In the end many like me would be more malleable if it were not for the politics that so obviously motivate the entire debacle. Still, thank you for your fair comments above.

Unfortunately for you it does. No scientific evidence supports your view.

Every day climate change secondary to humans is proven fraudulent. Its no longer necessary to even tease the data, its self evident. From the fraud to the manipulation to the threats from climate changers/leftists its apparent... climate change is a socialist ideology that has cloaked itself in the priesthood appearance of Science.

Climate Change secondary to humans is another Long March. Its populated by lefists, radicals, liberals,etc. The entire poison and its antidote is contrived by the selective application and withholding of funds. Every single day in the news there is more proof regarding the Political Ideology of Climate Change being delusion. Science? Its ubiquitous.

People might be more receptive to this delusion if it was not populated by angry brown shirts couched as concerned citizens. Its despotic/

Is that all you've got? Some of us come up with hard data and this is the best you can do? I can put the essential content of what you've just posted into one small sentence. Here it goes: "The obviousness is obviously obvious."

[up2u2]

Every day climate change secondary to humans is proven fraudulent. Its no longer necessary to even tease the data, its self evident. From the fraud to the manipulation to the threats from climate changers/leftists its apparent... climate change is a socialist ideology that has cloaked itself in the priesthood appearance of Science.

Climate Change secondary to humans is another Long March. Its populated by lefists, radicals, liberals,etc. The entire poison and its antidote is contrived by the selective application and withholding of funds. Every single day in the news there is more proof regarding the Political Ideology of Climate Change being delusion. Science? Its ubiquitous.

People might be more receptive to this delusion if it was not populated by angry brown shirts couched as concerned citizens. Its despotic/

Political gobbledygook. 120 years of scientific research and evidence on GW / CC simply does not support your view. You have demonstrated post after post you do not have even a basic understanding of GW / CC science. Volcanic activity, Younger Dryas, all wrong.