UN sounds alarm over record-breaking temperature rise

[up2u2]

As El Nino had broken and a La Nina is expected to follow I thought 2016 may not record another all time high surface temperature. My guess seems to be wrong Scientists: 2016 likely to be hottest year on record despite looming La Niña

"Despite La Niña’s propensity to drag down global temperature, so exceptional is the warming we’ve seen so far this year that 2016 is still likely to top the charts as the hottest year on record."

http://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-2016-likely-to-be-hottest-year-on-record-despite-looming-la-nina

That sux

[thaibeachlovers]

For those that weren't there to laugh when the man told them to, Kimmel obviously doesn't understand English comprehension. Palin never said that she knew more than 97% of scientists.

Kimmel comes off as an idiot by claiming that because 97% of "scientists" agree we have to believe it. Notably, he comes up with NOTHING that those 97% of scientists believe will change things "for the better".

I believe that they never come up with a solution because they know there isn't one, but they're doing very nicely out of telling us that we're doomed, so they keep being Chicken Little, because it's great for their bank balance.

You seem to be having trouble with making the very small leap from what is the scientifically established cause of GW / CC to what is the scientifically established solution to GW / CC. Let me see if I can make that very small leap really simple

Change from burning polluting Fossil Fuels (the cause of GW / CC) to not burning polluting Fossil Fuels (the solution to GW / CC).

Problem solved. It is really that simple.

I disagree. Even if everyone stopped using carbon fuel tomorrow, the carbon already in the atmosphere wouldn't vanish. As large portions of the worlds trees have been destroyed, it would take a long time to remove it. A lot would go into the oceans, but that wouldn't stop coral destruction.

Anyway, you know nobody is going to stop using carbon fuel any time soon. How many million cars are sold every year, ( and they are in addition to the ones already on the road )? How many more planes are being brought into use?

Try telling the Chinese they have to stop using cars!

There are two solutions. Reduce the population to reduce carbon use or invent something to remove greenhouse gases and store it in vast quantities.

[RickBradford]

Change from burning polluting Fossil Fuels (the cause of GW / CC) to not burning polluting Fossil Fuels (the solution to GW / CC).

Precisely the opposite, in fact, of what the UN achieved at its "historic" climate change conference in Paris last year, which has effectively guaranteed a 25% rise in global annual CO2 emissions by 2030.

[ilostmypassword]

Change from burning polluting Fossil Fuels (the cause of GW / CC) to not burning polluting Fossil Fuels (the solution to GW / CC).

Precisely the opposite, in fact, of what the UN achieved at its "historic" climate change conference in Paris last year, which has effectively guaranteed a 25% rise in global annual CO2 emissions by 2030.

No it has not. You seem to need to believe that new technologies won't be coming along to hasten the decline of even the economic incentives for using fossil fuels.

[RickBradford]

Change from burning polluting Fossil Fuels (the cause of GW / CC) to not burning polluting Fossil Fuels (the solution to GW / CC).

Precisely the opposite, in fact, of what the UN achieved at its "historic" climate change conference in Paris last year, which has effectively guaranteed a 25% rise in global annual CO2 emissions by 2030.

No it has not. You seem to need to believe that new technologies won't be coming along to hasten the decline of even the economic incentives for using fossil fuels.

You will not find a single economist, policy maker, or probably even an activist, who thinks that "new technologies" will do anything to defray rising CO2 emissions by 2030. It's Peter Pan thinking. Even the US Environmental Protection Agency doesn't believe it.

The only technology that could make a dent in it is nuclear, and Green objections to nuclear power have largely taken that option off the table. Fracking, which helps replace coal burning with gas burning, has a minor effect in some countries. Of course, Big Green objects to that as well.

We can build as many silly windmills as we like, or cover the landscape with solar panels, but they can't deliver sufficient reliable baseload.

Like it or not, global CO2 emissions are going to keep rising for the next 20 or 30 years, at the least.

[up2u2]

For those that weren't there to laugh when the man told them to, Kimmel obviously doesn't understand English comprehension. Palin never said that she knew more than 97% of scientists.

Kimmel comes off as an idiot by claiming that because 97% of "scientists" agree we have to believe it. Notably, he comes up with NOTHING that those 97% of scientists believe will change things "for the better".

I believe that they never come up with a solution because they know there isn't one, but they're doing very nicely out of telling us that we're doomed, so they keep being Chicken Little, because it's great for their bank balance.

You seem to be having trouble with making the very small leap from what is the scientifically established cause of GW / CC to what is the scientifically established solution to GW / CC. Let me see if I can make that very small leap really simple

Change from burning polluting Fossil Fuels (the cause of GW / CC) to not burning polluting Fossil Fuels (the solution to GW / CC).

Problem solved. It is really that simple.

I disagree. Even if everyone stopped using carbon fuel tomorrow, the carbon already in the atmosphere wouldn't vanish. As large portions of the worlds trees have been destroyed, it would take a long time to remove it. A lot would go into the oceans, but that wouldn't stop coral destruction.

Anyway, you know nobody is going to stop using carbon fuel any time soon. How many million cars are sold every year, ( and they are in addition to the ones already on the road )? How many more planes are being brought into use?

Try telling the Chinese they have to stop using cars!

There are two solutions. Reduce the population to reduce carbon use or invent something to remove greenhouse gases and store it in vast quantities.

It's like a broken record. Change, transition, move too, gradual, slowly. Your a bit of a lost cause I think TBL. GW / CC may just be a little too complex for you even at its most basic level.

[up2u2]

Change from burning polluting Fossil Fuels (the cause of GW / CC) to not burning polluting Fossil Fuels (the solution to GW / CC).

Precisely the opposite, in fact, of what the UN achieved at its "historic" climate change conference in Paris last year, which has effectively guaranteed a 25% rise in global annual CO2 emissions by 2030.

Instead of a 100% rise that would be good right?

[up2u2]

No it has not. You seem to need to believe that new technologies won't be coming along to hasten the decline of even the economic incentives for using fossil fuels.

You will not find a single economist, policy maker, or probably even an activist, who thinks that "new technologies" will do anything to defray rising CO2 emissions by 2030. It's Peter Pan thinking. Even the US Environmental Protection Agency doesn't believe it.

The only technology that could make a dent in it is nuclear, and Green objections to nuclear power have largely taken that option off the table. Fracking, which helps replace coal burning with gas burning, has a minor effect in some countries. Of course, Big Green objects to that as well.

We can build as many silly windmills as we like, or cover the landscape with solar panels, but they can't deliver sufficient reliable baseload.

Like it or not, global CO2 emissions are going to keep rising for the next 20 or 30 years, at the least.

Pretty impressive:

Analysis: Solar beats coal over a whole month in UK for first time

"The UK’s solar panels generated more electricity than coal in May 2016, the first-ever calendar month to pass the milestone, Carbon Brief analysis shows."

http://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-solar-beats-coal-over-a-whole-month-in-uk-for-first-time

[RickBradford]

Change from burning polluting Fossil Fuels (the cause of GW / CC) to not burning polluting Fossil Fuels (the solution to GW / CC).

Precisely the opposite, in fact, of what the UN achieved at its "historic" climate change conference in Paris last year, which has effectively guaranteed a 25% rise in global annual CO2 emissions by 2030.

Instead of a 100% rise that would be good right?

What does it matter, if you think, as many activists do, and many UN bigwigs bloviate, that we must start to cut CO2 emissions immediately or risk climate apocalypse.

There is even a prominent and well-funded organisation called 350.org, which believes we must cut the level of CO2 in the atmosphere to 350ppm from the current 400ppm.

“If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from [current levels] to at most 350 ppm.” - Dr. James Hansen

It isn't going to happen. And everyone knows it.

[up2u2]

Precisely the opposite, in fact, of what the UN achieved at its "historic" climate change conference in Paris last year, which has effectively guaranteed a 25% rise in global annual CO2 emissions by 2030.

Instead of a 100% rise that would be good right?

What does it matter, if you think, as many activists do, and many UN bigwigs bloviate, that we must start to cut CO2 emissions immediately or risk climate apocalypse.

There is even a prominent and well-funded organisation called 350.org, which believes we must cut the level of CO2 in the atmosphere to 350ppm from the current 400ppm.

“If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from [current levels] to at most 350 ppm.” - Dr. James Hansen

It isn't going to happen. And everyone knows it.

350ppm would be good. Glad you weren't in charge of the Moon Landing. The whole project would have been cancelled the following day of the announcement was made by FJK. Fortunately Climate Deniers funded by the Fossil Fuel industry no longer count.

[RickBradford]

350ppm would be good. <snip irrelevant drivel>

It isn't going to happen.

The UN knows it, the EU knows it, the IPCC knows it, the World Bank knows it, the OECD knows it, even 'Weepy' Bill McKibben knows it. Everybody knows it.

The British economist Lord Stern (much praised and supported by the above organisations) has said that if the world spends 2% of total GDP each year in suitable investments, it may be possible to stabilise peak CO2 concentrations at between 500ppm and 550ppm. No need to take my word for it -- his reports have been widely disseminated and covered.

You state that the solution to global warming is to not burn fossil fuels. That isn't going to happen for decades. As you say, it is really that simple.

[boomerangutang]

"on record" usually means since sometime in the 19th century. Of course it varies from place to place.

Catoni takes the mantle for Skeptic #1 on this thread (sorry, RB). He will always have a retort (usually non-scientific) for any data which shows added warming, Even when Bangkok, Miami, and Shanghai are under one to two meters of year 'round standing water, he'll find a way to brush it aside as either 'stupid' or 'insignificant.'

Even if half the land mass of the planet is underwater it doesn't prove that 1/ it was caused by man's activities 2/ that it can be reversed.

Primitive men believed that bad climate was caused by the gods being angry with them. Have we actually progressed at all since then, except we now have "scientists" instead of priests?

Apparently we're not going to agree at this time. I strongly believe that humans have an affect on climate, and most climate scientists agree with me on that. What %? I don't know, but probably over 93%. Each person puts out an average of 1 ton/yr of CO2 annually. That's close to 7 billion tons. For those who don't think added CO2 has any effect, then it's a moot point. From my research, I think 7 billion tons does have an effect. Yet when the dynamo of warmth starts really going, then lots more methane will get released, and that will propel and speed up the warming. We're at the beginning stages now. It's like a surfer at the crest of the big one, he's just easing down slowly, ....about to gain momentum at a fast clip.

As for clean alternative energy production methods: There are amazing developments, week by week. Just one example: San Diego plans to meet its goal of being fossil fuel independent (for energy production) in 15 or so years. I think that includes Nuclear independent also.

The world's largest concentrated solar energy plant is operational in Tonopah, California. It's a small town at the edge of the Nevada desert. Concentrated Solar (CS) is not PV. Photovoltaic is ok, particularly for small scale, and private homes, small businesses. But CS is great for large scale power generation. Spaniards had been developing the tech rather well, but couldn't figure how to make it useful if there were 3 or more days with no sun. Tonopah has cracked that nut, and has a method for keeping electricity production (without batteries) for up to 5 or 6 days of no sun. Residual heat. CS uses molten salt to heat water. I'm seriously thinking of visiting Tonopah to see 1st hand what they're doing. To me it's fascinating. Imagine if Thailand and hundreds of other places had that technology.

Another breakthrough (they all seem to be in California) is a Ca company which can store solar-generated energy by using garage-sized pressure tanks. That's right, air is pressurized during peak sun periods, and the air is expelled to power generators during times of low-sun. I love such simple technology. Analog!

Could Thai scientists add to tech developments like that? I think so, but there would have to be a sea change in priorities. Currently, most Thai U students want to study business because they think that's where the most money is. Virtually none are studying alternative power solutions. And less (what's less than none?) are developing technology. Thailand, like so many other countries, have their priorities all screwed up.

Try this on for size: call around Thailand and see if you can get solar panels along with someone to assist in building a frame for them, and hooking up a system. It's doubtful you'll find any Thais who have that expertise. You can find millions of Thais who know all about ghosts and talismans, but essentially none know the nuts and bolts of solar or other types of alternative power solutions. Ok, in fairness, I did find one guy in Chiang Mai who knew a few things. He sells solar panels, but doesn't install them.

I could rant on, but I'll leave it at that for now.

Edited June 8, 2016 by boomerangutang

[F430murci]

Civilized people have been around for "6000 years" is a specific statement, precise, but so incredibly wrong it's foolish.

Foolish, yes, but also profoundly bigoted against the rich and diverse cultures which came before ours and without whose developing awareness we would not have reached our present state.

Leftists always remind me of someone sitting at the end of a branch, placidly sawing it off at the base where it meets the trunk. It's like nothing of consequence happened before they were born, in fact it was all useless and evil, and needs to be discarded, in favour of a Leftist Year Zero, leading to utopia and New Soviet Person.

They'll still be busy virtue signalling about a Carbon Tax (and transgender bathrooms) when Isis sticks a nuke on us.

Those that always feel it necessary to infuse right or left or even more derogatory terms to describe others with a view that may not align with theirs are the ones that are truly jaded by their own political philosophy and perhaps unable to objectively evaluate either side of the debate.

[RickBradford]

Those that always feel it necessary to infuse right or left or even more derogatory terms to describe others with a view that may not align with theirs are the ones that are truly jaded by their own political philosophy and perhaps unable to objectively evaluate either side of the debate.

Agreed. That's why the climate alarmists relentlessly employ words like "Deniers", "Right-wing nutjobs", "Flat-earthers", and blame the whole skeptic movement on the Republican Party, Fox News, and the Koch Brothers.

Edited June 8, 2016 by RickBradford

[F430murci]

Those that always feel it necessary to infuse right or left or even more derogatory terms to describe others with a view that may not align with theirs are the ones that are truly jaded by their own political philosophy and perhaps unable to objectively evaluate either side of the debate.

Agreed. That's why the climate alarmists relentlessly employ words like "Deniers", "Right-wing nutjobs", "Flat-earthers", and blame the whole skeptic movement on the Republican Party, Fox News, and the Koch Brothers.

Pot calling kettle black. You gave the same mentality. Interesting you fail to see that.

[Catoni]

"on record" usually means since sometime in the 19th century. Of course it varies from place to place.

Catoni takes the mantle for Skeptic #1 on this thread (sorry, RB). He will always have a retort (usually non-scientific) for any data which shows added warming, Even when Bangkok, Miami, and Shanghai are under one to two meters of year 'round standing water, he'll find a way to brush it aside as either 'stupid' or 'insignificant.'

The definition of "On record..." means different things depending on the length of your data set and what it is that you are measuring.

Did they just start keeping those records back in the 1920's ? The 1880's ? They don't say.

Are they using proxy data and measuring back a couple thousand years or more ? They don't say...

When you tell someone ..... "...on record..." it can mean whatever you wish it to mean if you don't qualify your statement...

But then.... that is a typical leftist Alarmist tactic...... isn't it ? ?

Pathetic ! !

[up2u2]

350ppm would be good. <snip irrelevant drivel>

It isn't going to happen.

The UN knows it, the EU knows it, the IPCC knows it, the World Bank knows it, the OECD knows it, even 'Weepy' Bill McKibben knows it. Everybody knows it.

The British economist Lord Stern (much praised and supported by the above organisations) has said that if the world spends 2% of total GDP each year in suitable investments, it may be possible to stabilise peak CO2 concentrations at between 500ppm and 550ppm. No need to take my word for it -- his reports have been widely disseminated and covered.

You state that the solution to global warming is to not burn fossil fuels. That isn't going to happen for decades. As you say, it is really that simple.

Yes, GW/CC is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better. Corporations that profit from polluting Fossil Fuels have run an effective propaganda campaign to stall implementing strategies to reduce CO₂ pollution. Looking back the biggest regret will be allowing this to occur with over 20 years of inaction wasted. The acceptance of GW/CC is now overwhelming. Even the prehistoric Right Wing have now 'come to heel'. I would like to think that they have simply embraced the scientific evidence and come to their senses but recent extreme weather events and actual climates changing have made it abundantly clear the science is accurate. It has always been the case that with the issue that the choices were, address the pollution or have the repercussions of that pollution imposed upon you.

In respect to Stern's analysis his point is with another further 20 years of inaction it will be 10% of GDP spend to ward off permanent extinction. For the politically motivated, entrenched Climate Deniers I am not sure how desperate things have to become and how much destruction has to occur before they come to their senses.

[up2u2]

"on record" usually means since sometime in the 19th century. Of course it varies from place to place.

Catoni takes the mantle for Skeptic #1 on this thread (sorry, RB). He will always have a retort (usually non-scientific) for any data which shows added warming, Even when Bangkok, Miami, and Shanghai are under one to two meters of year 'round standing water, he'll find a way to brush it aside as either 'stupid' or 'insignificant.'

The definition of "On record..." means different things depending on the length of your data set and what it is that you are measuring.

Did they just start keeping those records back in the 1920's ? The 1880's ? They don't say.

Are they using proxy data and measuring back a couple thousand years or more ? They don't say...

When you tell someone ..... "...on record..." it can mean whatever you wish it to mean if you don't qualify your statement...

But then.... that is a typical leftist Alarmist tactic...... isn't it ? ?

Pathetic ! !

You seem to be debating a point you don't seem to have much knowledge on. Did they? Do they? Are they? They don't say (they do actually).

[RickBradford]

Those that always feel it necessary to infuse right or left or even more derogatory terms to describe others with a view that may not align with theirs are the ones that are truly jaded by their own political philosophy and perhaps unable to objectively evaluate either side of the debate.

Agreed. That's why the climate alarmists relentlessly employ words like "Deniers", "Right-wing nutjobs", "Flat-earthers", and blame the whole skeptic movement on the Republican Party, Fox News, and the Koch Brothers.

Pot calling kettle black. You gave the same mentality. Interesting you fail to see that.

As an astute observer once noted "If you want to know what the Left is truly concerned about, you need only look at what they are attacking you for."

Note the poster above? Can't help themselves. It's all "prehistoric Right Wing", polluting Fossil Fuel corporations, "propaganda", "politically motivated, entrenched Climate Deniers."

It's tiresomely repetitive and predictable, but a more timely confirmation of my point could hardly be imagined.

[up2u2]

Paris Agreement forces Fossil Fuel polluter Shell to back away from Climate Denial:

To protect its profits Shell has always maintained in its 'New Lens Scenario' the line that limiting GW to around 2.5^Oc by the end of the Century may be achievable. However, with the Paris Agreement indicating a benchmark target of 2.0^Oc or flagging 1.5^Oc may be mandated Shell has had to take a change of heart and come clean with investors.

With a new report outlining that under a combination of reduction techniques and clean energy investment Shell could position itself to meet these targets.

Just goes to show once the bottom line is made clear to Fossil Fuel polluters they can either step into line or become fossilised just like their products.

One little trick that should be avoided is allowing polluters to Corporatise the profits and socialise the losses. Fossil Fuel polluters know full well the cost to the environment of their activities and it should be made very clear that they will be 'on the hook' to fund the required cleanup of their pollution.

[MajarTheLion]

From the research i have done,reading as many sources of information i can,i am strongly starting to think we may have actually silently passed the tipping point,as the last few months indicate,sea ice in the Arctic at lowest ever extent,highest ever temp recorded in India this week,highest ever temps recently recorded in SE Asia,massive droughts in Africa,Australia having a record warm autumn,record sea temps leading to biggest bleaching event in recorded data.

Does anyone really think that the paris accord will do much to lower co2 emissions,i am afraid it is looking more like we w ill be hitting the 4-6c temp rise which will prove catastrophic for much of humankind,and change many areas of the planet,Se Asia at least the mainland is very vunerable,lets not forget once the Sahara,and large parts of Australia were once lush forests.

Yes you are correct. Al Gore gave us ten years to do something before it was too late. That time has passed. We are all doomed!

Of course, the "highest ever temps" is pure nonsense. It means highest temperatures ever recording. Serious context is missing. We've been recording temperatures for about 0.0003% of the time Earth has existed. Furthermore, this latest temperature rise is less than the previous four over the past 400,000 years. There's really not much to be excited about here. Earth's climate is constantly changing. And to think we're going to change the course of it by a carbon trading scheme for the rich, welfare subsidies for Teslas and other scams is quite frankly absurd.

[MajarTheLion]

Paris Agreement forces Fossil Fuel polluter Shell to back away from Climate Denial:

To protect its profits Shell has always maintained in its 'New Lens Scenario' the line that limiting GW to around 2.5^Oc by the end of the Century may be achievable. However, with the Paris Agreement indicating a benchmark target of 2.0^Oc or flagging 1.5^Oc may be mandated Shell has had to take a change of heart and come clean with investors.

With a new report outlining that under a combination of reduction techniques and clean energy investment Shell could position itself to meet these targets.

Just goes to show once the bottom line is made clear to Fossil Fuel polluters they can either step into line or become fossilised just like their products.

One little trick that should be avoided is allowing polluters to Corporatise the profits and socialise the losses. Fossil Fuel polluters know full well the cost to the environment of their activities and it should be made very clear that they will be 'on the hook' to fund the required cleanup of their pollution.

Fossil fuel polluters? One of the biggest ones on the planet, Barack Hussein Obama, is screaming the loudest about it. I also find it ironic that he, surrounded by guys with automatic weapons, wants to ban semi-automatic weapons for the people.

No, I think I'll pass. If climate change were such a serious issue, he and other jet fuel-burning oligarchs would be cutting back on their burning of fossil fuels. Obviously it's not a big concern of theirs, so why should the rest of us be concerned?

[MajarTheLion]

Those that always feel it necessary to infuse right or left or even more derogatory terms to describe others with a view that may not align with theirs are the ones that are truly jaded by their own political philosophy and perhaps unable to objectively evaluate either side of the debate.

Agreed. That's why the climate alarmists relentlessly employ words like "Deniers", "Right-wing nutjobs", "Flat-earthers", and blame the whole skeptic movement on the Republican Party, Fox News, and the Koch Brothers.

It is also why they use things like threats of arrest and prosecution and decertification of professionals who don't tow the liberal climate change line. That clearly indicates we are dealing with thugs and political activists, not scientists.

[RickBradford]

Those that always feel it necessary to infuse right or left or even more derogatory terms to describe others with a view that may not align with theirs are the ones that are truly jaded by their own political philosophy and perhaps unable to objectively evaluate either side of the debate.

Agreed. That's why the climate alarmists relentlessly employ words like "Deniers", "Right-wing nutjobs", "Flat-earthers", and blame the whole skeptic movement on the Republican Party, Fox News, and the Koch Brothers.

It is also why they use things like threats of arrest and prosecution and decertification of professionals who don't tow the liberal climate change line. That clearly indicates we are dealing with thugs and political activists, not scientists.

Not to forget the calls for forcible tattooing, imprisonment, demonisation as traitors and execution of those who don't toe the Green/Left line, as well as relentless attempts to ban skeptics from the airwaves.

"Thugs and political activists" is letting them off lightly.

[up2u2]

From the research i have done,reading as many sources of information i can,i am strongly starting to think we may have actually silently passed the tipping point,as the last few months indicate,sea ice in the Arctic at lowest ever extent,highest ever temp recorded in India this week,highest ever temps recently recorded in SE Asia,massive droughts in Africa,Australia having a record warm autumn,record sea temps leading to biggest bleaching event in recorded data.

Does anyone really think that the paris accord will do much to lower co2 emissions,i am afraid it is looking more like we w ill be hitting the 4-6c temp rise which will prove catastrophic for much of humankind,and change many areas of the planet,Se Asia at least the mainland is very vunerable,lets not forget once the Sahara,and large parts of Australia were once lush forests.

Yes you are correct. Al Gore gave us ten years to do something before it was too late. That time has passed. We are all doomed!

Of course, the "highest ever temps" is pure nonsense. It means highest temperatures ever recording. Serious context is missing. We've been recording temperatures for about 0.0003% of the time Earth has existed. Furthermore, this latest temperature rise is less than the previous four over the past 400,000 years. There's really not much to be excited about here. Earth's climate is constantly changing. And to think we're going to change the course of it by a carbon trading scheme for the rich, welfare subsidies for Teslas and other scams is quite frankly absurd.

and here we go again 'All this science on the historical understanding of Earth's climate' is accurate but 'all this science' that confirms GW / CC' that is based on the historical scientific data is inaccurate, argument.

Either ALL the science is wrong or all the science is correct they are one and the same.

If you do not agree with the current science on GW / CC you must also disagree with the historical scientific data. They are both extensions of each other.

Your graphic is proxy data from Vostok Ice Core Antarctica. The lead scientist of the Vostok Ice Core research expedition, who rarely if ever gives interviews, has made it quite clear the use of the data by Climate Deniers is inherently flawed and a gross misuse of the research.

[up2u2]

Those that always feel it necessary to infuse right or left or even more derogatory terms to describe others with a view that may not align with theirs are the ones that are truly jaded by their own political philosophy and perhaps unable to objectively evaluate either side of the debate.

Agreed. That's why the climate alarmists relentlessly employ words like "Deniers", "Right-wing nutjobs", "Flat-earthers", and blame the whole skeptic movement on the Republican Party, Fox News, and the Koch Brothers.

It is also why they use things like threats of arrest and prosecution and decertification of professionals who don't tow the liberal climate change line. That clearly indicates we are dealing with thugs and political activists, not scientists.

I agree the US RICO legislation should have been used to go after Exxon / Koch Bros. et al. It was clearly racketeering. The threat was exactly why Exxon / Koch Bros. et al had to go underground and use bogus Right Wing 'Think Tanks', 'Institutions' and 'Foundations' to fund Climate Denial. Their latest Climate Denial mockumentary 'Climate Hustle' will be funded by the Climate Denier bankrollers.

If you mislead people knowing full well that is what you are doing and it causes harm you should be held responsible. Or does that only apply to poor folk? Typical double standards by the Right Wingers

[RickBradford]

Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, has just released a detailed (24pp PDF) report entitled Positive Impact of Human CO2 Emissions, which points out, among other things, how close we have come to extinction in the past through not having enough CO2 (plants need 150ppm to survive) and how human emissions are restoring a healthy CO2 balance.

Climate skeptics will enjoy the context it gives to the political witch-hunt against CO2.

Green/Left alarmists will enjoy it too, as they can have fun rushing around trying to find out whether the content has been influenced by Fox News, the Koch Brothers, Exxon-Mobil or any other cartoon villain they can dream up.

https://fcpp.org/sites/default/files/documents/Moore%20-%20Positive%20Impact%20of%20Human%20CO2%20Emissions.pdf

[up2u2]

Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, has just released a detailed (24pp PDF) report entitled Positive Impact of Human CO2 Emissions, which points out, among other things, how close we have come to extinction in the past through not having enough CO2 (plants need 150ppm to survive) and how human emissions are restoring a healthy CO2 balance.

Climate skeptics will enjoy the context it gives to the political witch-hunt against CO2.

Green/Left alarmists will enjoy it too, as they can have fun rushing around trying to find out whether the content has been influenced by Fox News, the Koch Brothers, Exxon-Mobil or any other cartoon villain they can dream up.

https://fcpp.org/sites/default/files/documents/Moore%20-%20Positive%20Impact%20of%20Human%20CO2%20Emissions.pdf

What scientific Journal was it peer reviewed and published in?

lmao just noticed it was put together by Monckton. I suppose Murdoch funded it. Ah too funny

Edited June 9, 2016 by up2u2

[RickBradford]

I suppose Murdoch funded it.

You suppose? That definitely takes Win, Place and Show for the silliest evidence-free slur on this thread.

What scientific Journal was it peer reviewed and published in?

What scientific Journal was the idea that a 2C temperature rise is the "dangerous limit" peer reviewed and published in? Typical Green-Left double standards

[ricklev]

I suppose Murdoch funded it.

You suppose? That definitely takes Win, Place and Show for the silliest evidence-free slur on this thread.

What scientific Journal was it peer reviewed and published in?

What scientific Journal was the idea that a 2C temperature rise is the "dangerous limit" peer reviewed and published in? Typical Green-Left double standards

https://www.google.co.th/#q=What+scientific+Journal+was+the+idea+that+a+2C+temperature+rise+is+the+%22dangerous+limit%22+peer+reviewed+and+published+in