Climate Change Consensus?

[Guest woxof]

Exactly.....Now that the hoax is out, we should send trillions to places like massive weapon upgrading China and corrupt African dictators beacause of all the other (perhaps new) supposed reasons for this conference. Healthy children, clean water, liveable cities, sustainability(are some out there getting desperate?).

Here is some of what Harper(who now looks like a genius) said long ago and he was bang-on about Kyoto.

"- It’s based on tentative and contradictory scientific evidence about climate trends.

- It focuses on carbon dioxide, which is essential to life, rather than upon pollutants.

- Canada is the only country in the world required to make significant cuts in emissions. Third World countries are exempt, the Europeans get credit for shutting down inefficient Soviet-era industries, and no country in the Western hemisphere except Canada is signing.

- As the effects trickle through other industries, workers and consumers everywhere in Canada will lose.

- The only winners will be countries such as Russia, India, and China, from which Canada will have to buy emissions credits. Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.

[Mitch Cronin]

Now that the hoax is out, we should send trillions to places like massive weapon upgrading China and corrupt African dictators beacause of all the other (perhaps new) supposed reasons for this conference. Healthy children, clean water, liveable cities, sustainability(are some out there getting desperate?).

Woxof... could you expand on that a little? Without sarcasm or any other assumptions that I'd know what you meant... I'm a little thick today...

What are you saying there?

[Guest woxof]

Now that the hoax is out, we should send trillions to places like massive weapon upgrading China and corrupt African dictators beacause of all the other (perhaps new) supposed reasons for this conference. Healthy children, clean water, liveable cities, sustainability(are some out there getting desperate?).

Woxof... could you expand on that a little? Without sarcasm or any other assumptions that I'd know what you meant... I'm a little thick today...

What are you saying there?

Certainly....I believe that it is safe to say that the science on man-mad global warming is nowhere near settled as has been repeatedly claimed. In fact I have posted many articles here discrediting this theory.

It has been proposed that hundreds of billions of dollars be transferred to the third world every year in this Copenhagen conference. In the article posted below you see Gordon Brown proposing 100 billion per year. That seems to be just the beginning. I strongly, strongly suggest you read the article below.

Meanwhile China plows money into a bluewater navy, ICBM's a fifth generation fighter jet, etc, etc. Meanwhile endless amounts of money are stolen by African leaders who will no doubt take more as we transfer it to them(who doesn't believe that?).

Meanwhile as climategate gets bigger, we get people posting or creating cartoons showing all the other reasons to start the biggest wealth transfer in history based on extremely shaky science. We have to do this anyways so children will be healthier and our water will be somehow cleaner. I suggest we could spend much less than trillions to achieve these goals.

To quote the above article....

"Copenhagen may lead over the next 20 years to the largest transfer of money in history from the global north to the south, dwarfing the amount that developing countries now receive in aid."

"At a conservative estimate, the burgeoning climate change industry expects Copenhagen to open the door to more than $10trillion of investment in low carbon technologies by 2030."

"But developing countries on the frontline of global warming say it is not just money at stake in Copenhagen – it is the survival of their people. Their negotiators are holding out for at least $400bn a year by 2020, and more later."

" Gordon Brown proposed that rich countries together contribute around $100bn a year. The EU improved this to become a firm proposal to transfer €100bn a year to poor countries by 2020. The money would start flowing from 2012."

"But developing countries say that rich countries must contribute at least 1% of their GNP by 2020."

[Guest woxof]

From the Guardian newspaper in the U.K. One of Britain's largest newspapers. Article written by their environment editor.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009...penhagen-summit

Copenhagen summit: It's money that matters in the backroom talks

Vast sums will be needed to lubricate the settlement rich and poor nations must achieve to combat global warming. John Vidal considers the prospect of the biggest transfer of funds in history

The most powerful lobbyists stalking the corridors of the Copenhagen climate summit will not be the noisy environmentalists or even the global charities who will press politicians for a strong deal that avoids the worst of global warming.

Ecology and morals count in the public arena, but as the negotiations progress and world leaders arrive to take the stage, money will dominate the backroom talks. It is likely to be the deal maker or breaker. Copenhagen may lead over the next 20 years to the largest transfer of money in history from the global north to the south, dwarfing the amount that developing countries now receive in aid.

Industrialists, financiers, bankers, business groups and carbon traders know there is much more in play at the Danish capital than a concern for the health of the planet. They all have a stake in the decisions made and see climate change as the driver of a global energy revolution and the chance to trade in technologies that could shift the world economy.

Those money men will be pressing for a deal that sets up new markets, accelerates investment in clean technologies and gives a clear signal to investors that the low-carbon future lies ahead.

At a conservative estimate, the burgeoning climate change industry expects Copenhagen to open the door to more than $10tn of investment in low carbon technologies by 2030. That, says the International Energy Agency, is what is needed to limit carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere to 450 parts per million, and give a decent chance of avoiding dangerous climate change. The summit could also lead to new carbon markets which will eventually be worth trillions of dollars a year.

But developing countries on the frontline of global warming say it is not just money at stake in Copenhagen – it is the survival of their people. Their negotiators are holding out for at least $400bn a year by 2020, and more later. They have already won the argument that they should be compensated for damage caused by the carbon emitted as developed nations grew rich. They say if western nations expect them to reduce their future emissions with technology that they cannot afford, then the rich must pay for it. So far, ministerial meetings in Edinburgh, London and elsewhere have failed to break the deadlock. Gordon Brown proposed that rich countries together contribute around $100bn a year. The EU improved this to become a firm proposal to transfer €100bn a year to poor countries by 2020. The money would start flowing from 2012.

But developing countries say that rich countries must contribute at least 1% of their GNP by 2020. It's not much, they argue, compared to what was found to stave off a global recession, and nothing at all compared to the eventual likely costs of ignoring climate change altogether.

But the total on the table is just one source of the deadlock. Rich countries insist that any money raised for climate adaptation or mitigation be channelled through the World Bank or the Global Environmental Facility. But these two New York-based institutions are perceived to be controlled by the rich. Instead, poor countries want a separate climate adaptation fund which would be administered by the UN. This they say, would give them an equal voice on how the money is spent.

There is also growing hostility to western nations' insistence that the market provide the main source of funds for adaptation. The EU has said that only €22-50bn of the proposed €100bn will come from public funds. The rest is to come from carbon markets and the private sector.

But many developing countries suffered badly from the liberalisation of their economies under the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and have serious concerns about over-reliance on the private sector. Making carbon a commodity, like pork bellies or wheat, is inappropriate for raising the money people need to survive, they say.

But poor countries are divided among themselves by an ambitious plan for rich countries to pay them to protect their forests – nearly 17% of all global carbon emissions are the result of deforestation. In theory, an agreement to press forward with the scheme known as Redd (Reduced emissions from deforestaion and degradation) would generate $10- $40 billion a year for some of the poorest tropical countries. But while countries like Congo DRC, Cameroon, Guyana and Papua New Guinea are eager for Redd to be approved at Copenhagen there are many objections and reservations.

Brazil, the country with the greatest swathe of forest, is unconvinced that markets are the best way to raise money and wants a separate fund. Indigenous peoples and others who depend on forests fear that governments would use it as an excuse to remove them, and environment groups say that unless better protection is built at Copenhagen, it could prove a charter for loggers to reap big profits.

Alternatives to markets have stalled. Plans drawn up by developing nations to raise up to $10bn a year from a small levy on every passenger flight have faltered, as has the idea of auctioning emissions credits. A tax on all financial transactions has got nowhere and the idea of a carbon tax is a non-starter in most places.

With only a few days' negotiating time left before the politicians arrive in Copenhagen, it is extremely unlikely that any financial agreement will be reached except on the broadest of principles. The danger is that the negotiations on who pays what to whom will not just stretch into next year, but will become intractable ‑ a cheque that never gets signed.

[Guest woxof]

Meanwhile Gordon Brown of the U.K. is calling for even deeper cuts leadong to this quote...

"The prime minister's call for Europe to increase its "level of ambition" came as the expert committee charged with setting Britain's carbon targets published a report suggesting that higher flight taxes will be necessary to choke off demand for air travel."

Now maybe some on here will start to see what is going to happen based on scandalous science.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009...-emissions-cuts

[boestar]

RE: Melting arctic ice and water level

Try this little experiment...

Place several cubes of ice in a glass.

Fill said glass with water

Wait for ice to melt

What happens to the water level in the glass???

I am no expert in Physics or atmospherics or any such thing. I fix planes.

One thing I do remember is that frozen water has a lower density than liquid water. There is also something about displacement of water....

My understanding of that tells me that melting arctic ice would cause a slight DECREASE in water levels not a RISE.

Just some food for thought from a simple observer.

[Mitch Cronin]

....sigh... somebody else tell him.... I just wanna lurk for a while.

[13820]

I have always assumed they are talking about ice that is above sea level. Not free floating ice in the ocean.

[Guest rattler]

We keep hearing about Tonnes of Co2 emission ,since emissions are not measured by any instruments but are rather the result of calculations based on certain assumptions, is it likely that the measurements are inaccurate? In other words, over or under stated?

I am of course talking about the numbers attributed to countries as a whole and not just specific industries that may be subject to accurate measurements rather than by a mathmatical forumla based on assumptions.

[Guest rattler]

RE: Melting arctic ice and water level

Try this little experiment...

Place several cubes of ice in a glass.

Fill said glass with water

Wait for ice to melt

What happens to the water level in the glass???

I am no expert in Physics or atmospherics or any such thing. I fix planes.

One thing I do remember is that frozen water has a lower density than liquid water. There is also something about displacement of water....

My understanding of that tells me that melting arctic ice would cause a slight DECREASE in water levels not a RISE.

Just some food for thought from a simple observer.

This may help you out.

4. Will Arctic ice melt have any effects beyond the polar region?

Yes -- the contraction of the Arctic ice cap is accelerating global warming. Snow and ice usually form a protective, cooling layer over the Arctic. When that covering melts, the earth absorbs more sunlight and gets hotter. And the latest scientific data confirm the far-reaching effects of climbing global temperatures.

Rising temperatures are already affecting Alaska, where the spruce bark beetle is breeding faster in the warmer weather. These pests now sneak in an extra generation each year. From 1993 to 2003, they chewed up 3.4 million acres of Alaskan forest.

Melting glaciers and land-based ice sheets also contribute to rising sea levels, threatening low-lying areas around the globe with beach erosion, coastal flooding, and contamination of freshwater supplies. (Sea level is not affected when floating sea ice melts.) At particular risk are island nations like the Maldives; over half of that nation's populated islands lie less than 6 feet above sea level. Even major cities like Shanghai and Lagos would face similar problems, as they also lie just six feet above present water levels.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/qthinice.asp#4

[FireFox]

Hide your eyes conspiracy theorists.

Melting Ice Caps Expose Hundreds Of Secret Arctic Lairs

The Onion Peels Back the Layers

[mrlupin]

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visu...-the-consensus/

[deicer]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/...article1392331/

[Guest rattler]

http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/01/2007-war...coldest-in.html

[Guest woxof]

I see that De-icers article says "According to the U.S. space agency NASA, the other warmest years since 1850 have been 2005, 1998, 2007 and 2006."

Either NASA is still incopetent or lying or else the newspaper reporter is as you will see in the article below about two Canadians(referred to sometimes as M and M) changing the Climate change debate...

"In 2007, M and M scored again, finding errors in NASA's own long-term temperature records. The agency was forced to issue a correction, stating that 1934, not 1998, was the warmest year recorded in the United States.

Woxof...exposing the truth for all.

[Guest woxof]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/Canadi...6516/story.html

The Canadians who changed the climate debate

Canadians Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have discovered faulty calculations in some of the key scientific studies behind the reports of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As Richard Foot reports, that's made them pretty unpopular in some circles.

Steve McIntyre, pictured, and Ross McKitrick have become a serious thorn in the side of climatologists and others who say the planet is under serious threat from man-made global warming.Photograph by: ., Canwest News ServiceSteve McIntyre, 62, is a Toronto retiree. He plays squash, dabbles with numbers and insists he never set out to stir up any trouble.

So why does his name appear again and again -- in the most unflattering ways -- in hundreds of e-mails written by the world's most influential climate change scientists, that were mysteriously taken from a computer in Britain last month and published on the Internet?

In these private messages, McIntyre is called everything from a "bozo" and a "moron" to a "playground bully."

"In my opinion," said one e-mail written by Benjamin Santer, a senior climatologist with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, "Stephen McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science."

The "Climategate" e-mails have sparked a scandal -- just ahead of next week's global warming summit in Copenhagen -- for suggesting climatologists may have manipulated data to exaggerate the threat of global warming and conspired to keep contrary points of view out of the scientific journals. But the e-mails are also conspicuous for their repeated, nasty references to two Canadians -- McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick -- who have become a serious thorn in the side of climatologists and others who say the planet is under serious threat from man-made global warming.

Although little-known in Canada, McIntyre and McKitrick -- or M and M as they're called in climate change circles -- have since 2003 put forward evidence of faulty calculations in some of the key scientific studies behind the reports of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Their work has drawn attention from the U.S. Congress, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Wall Street Journal, which last month called them "the climate change gang's most dangerous apostates."

McIntyre, a Toronto mining analyst and speculator, became intrigued by the climate change issue when the Kyoto Protocol was up for debate in 2002.

He was skeptical of a key piece of science in the IPCC reports of the time -- a graph, based on research by U.S. climatologist Michael Mann, that showed Earth's temperatures had remained relatively stable over the past thousand years then began rising suddenly in the 20th century.

The graph, shaped like a sideways hockey stick, became one of the most convincing illustrations in Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth, which rallied millions to the cause of global warming. But it reminded McIntyre of the promotional graphs and statistics commonly used by mining promoters in search of investors.

He said he decided -- purely out of curiosity and not because he wanted to shake up the global warming debate -- to carry out some due diligence on the numbers.

Replicating the arcane calculations of climate modelling science would be an impossible task for most people. But McIntyre had been a math prizewinner in high school, had studied pure mathematics at the University of Toronto and had won, but turned down, a mathematics scholarship to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, choosing a business career instead.

"I read Mann's paper and thought, 'What this looks to me is like really overblown and high falutin' language for fairly simple linear regressions and matrix algebra. I figured it would be like doing a big crossword puzzle, so I went at it," he said. "I had no particular expectations that it would be wrong, I just thought it would be interesting. It sounds bizarre in retrospect, but I take up odd interests from time to time."

McIntyre contacted Ross Mc-Kitrick, a University of Guelph statistical economist who was also analyzing the science behind the IPCC reports. Together they unearthed evidence that Mann's calculations were predisposed to producing a hockey stick-shaped graph, with sharply rising temperatures in the 20th century.

They also showed that Mann's calculations ignored the data showing a major warming trend in the 15th century, much like the warming of the 20th century.

"That discovery hit me like a bombshell," wrote one scientist in the MIT Technology Review in 2004. "Suddenly the 'hockey stick,' the poster child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics."

M and M's findings sparked hearings on the science of global warming by the U.S. Congress, and an investigation by the National Academy of Sciences. Their report concluded that while the wider science behind 20th century global warming remains valid, the hockey stick graph and other long-term temperature models were fraught with "uncertainties" and that Mann's calculations "tended to bias the shape of (hockey stick) reconstructions."

Mann was required to publish a retraction about some of his statistical methods in the science journal Nature.

In 2007, M and M scored again, finding errors in NASA's own long-term temperature records. The agency was forced to issue a correction, stating that 1934, not 1998, was the warmest year recorded in the United States.

This year, M and M have also raised questions about the accuracy of another hockey stick-shaped graph, this one by a British climatologist. The Canadians showed that the graph -- also showing drastically warmer 20th century temperatures than in the past -- is based on tree ring samples taken from 12 tree cores in a single region of Russia.

McKitrick said at first it was "very stressful" questioning the work of the tight-knit climate change science community. "When we first came out with our criticisms, it was a pretty lonely and difficult time."

For one thing, their work was shunned by the main academic climate journals, which forced them to put their findings on the Internet instead. McIntyre's blog, climateaudit.org has since exploded in popularity.

Scientists such as Mann have also denounced M and M as "frauds" and called their research "pure crap." Others have accused them of being secretly sponsored by the fossil fuel industry, a charge both McIntyre and McKitrick deny.

McKitrick said his only salary comes from the University of Guelph, and while he is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute -- a think- tank skeptical of global warming, which has received funding from some oil companies -- his affiliation to the institute is unpaid.

As for McIntyre, he said he's not paid by anyone, nor formally affiliated with any agency or industry. He's just an old math whiz with time on his hands, and an eccentric hobby.

If scientists were really interested in learning the truth about global warming, McKitrick said he and McIntyre would be encouraged for contributing to the debate. Instead, they are seen as unwelcome outsiders, meddling where they have no business. He said many of the world's top climate modellers have circled the wagons, denied them access to raw data and cast personal aspersions against the pair.

"Look at the e-mails," said McKitrick. "There's such strong tribalism in the field. The extraordinary thing about the climate issue, is that the scientific principle of critical thinking, of exploring the data and stating your views regardless of what your senior colleagues think -- that idea has been lost in this field."

Not all climatologists have dismissed their work.

"M and M need to be taken seriously," said Judith Curry -- a global warming believer -- who chairs the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

"Sometimes scientists can't see the forest for the trees until someone from the outside steps in and looks at this with fresh eyes. What McIntyre has done is elevate the level of statistical analysis used in constructing the paleo temperature record."

While McKitrick said he's dubious about the threat of climate change, and thinks his research has helped cast doubt on such fears, McIntyre -- despite the demonization of him by his opponents -- said he really doesn't know what to think.

"I honestly don't know whether it is a big problem, a little problem or a medium problem. And I don't think the skeptics have proven that global warming is not a problem."

[Guest rattler]

Is Climate change occurring?

Seems so

Is it man made?

Unsure

Despite that, we should be doing all we can to reduce our impact upon the earth.

Is carbon trading the way to go.... NO!

However we can as individuals, recycle, reduce our energy demands, utilize public transit when we can, keep our indoor temp at 68F (20C) during the day and 64F at night. Turn those conditioners down to a max of 72F during the summer.

If available, use locally produced items vs those requiring long transportation to get to our markets.

If you have a home, turn some of that lawn into a market garden.

In Calgary and other arid climates, get rid of the lawn and instead cultivate local vegetation.

And lastly stop having those "Climate conferences" unless all attendees can get there using energy efficient transportation, no private transportation (jets & limos) for example. Just public transportation. I bet most of the delegates would no longer show up.

I bet we would all be surprised at how much energy we can sav,

and I bet every one on this forum could add a bunch of other items.

[Check Pilot]

It seems that there is lots of new climate stuff popping up - mysteriously at the same time as the "Hopen and Copen in the Hagen" carries on.

Once this one is all over, however, the next "crisis" is nicely waiting in the wings to hit us between the lookers. From macro climate to the tiniest of particle. The fearmongering must continue or else how can anyone get any research money?

http://www.rodale.com/products-contain-nan..._07-_-Top5-_-NA

[Say Again, Over!]

Rattler,

Very well put. A sensible approach to this "crisis".

Felix

[Fido]

In any-one's support for carbon controls through events like CPH have they considered the direct effect on their personal lives?

Gasoline and Jet Fuel will go up in price significantly.

Airline traffic will be capped artificially by government fiat.

What is not done by fiat will be done by raising the price of airline tickets through the increase in taxation specific to airlines.

[Check Pilot]

And we can add some more stuff to further make the sheep herd further into the corner of fear:

Another upcoming crisis:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/...climate-threat/

[Canus Chinookus]

I like Mr Lupin's chart, but I almost couldn't get past the title... says it all.

Global Warming Skeptics vs The Scientific Consensus

Really? Actually, I'm surprised they didn't call them Deniers. My other issue is that they assume their theory is the scientific consensus?? Isn't that part the problem, no consensus?

[Mitch Cronin]

You're absolutely right Mr. Dog Wind... (should that simplify to dog fart?) That's exactly the problem. Both camps obviously have "intere$ts" doing their level best to appear to be right. We're along for a ride, without consent.

One way or another, our great grandchildren are probably going to be looking at this time in history as pivotal. ... in many respects.

[Canus Chinookus]

I prefer Warm Dog Wind... smells better that way!

I think it's safe to say it's all boiling down to a bunch of politicians and activists trying their very own brand of eugenics. Scary stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Skip down to the section on Canada.

[Mitch Cronin]