Jump to content

Copenhagen


Recommended Posts

I finally figured why buy into this CAGW crap: you don't know the first thing about science.

nor, according to you... do all those scientists/institutions/organizations/societies/bodies/etc., all those perpetuating the "myth", the "hoax", through their, as you state, "cooked manufactured consensus" :lol: The only real knowledgeable Riverwind scientist is the AGW skeptic/denying kind!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 506
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So would you support Harper if he comes home and says he refused to sign a deal because it was going to be too expensive for Canada? You know you would not no matter what the facts were.

The pattern seems clear - seems evident... we had a previous thread on the bullying and "walk out on Canada" during the recent Bangkok meetings. Has Harper actually been reigned in... was his most recent comment speaking positively towards a Copenhagen agreement - genuine?

Canada's image lies in tatters.

In June this year the media obtained Canadian briefing documents which showed the government was scheming to divide the Europeans. During the meeting in Bangkok in October, almost the entire developing world bloc walked out when the Canadian delegate was speaking, as they were so revolted by his bullying.
Last week the Commonwealth heads of government battled for hours (and eventually won) against Canada's obstructions. A concerted campaign has now begun to expel Canada from the Commonwealth.

In Copenhagen next week, this country will do everything in its power to wreck the talks. The rest of the world must do everything in its power to stop it. But such is the fragile nature of climate agreements that one rich nation – especially a member of the G8, the Commonwealth and the Kyoto group of industrialised countries – could scupper the treaty. Canada now threatens the well being of the world.

.

.

The purpose of Canada's assault on the international talks is to protect this industry. This is not a poor nation. It does not depend for its economic survival on exploiting this resource. But the tar barons of Alberta have been able to hold the whole country to ransom. They have captured Canada's politics and are turning this lovely country into a cruel and thuggish place.

Canada is a cultured, peaceful nation, which every so often allows a band of Neanderthals to trample over it. Timber firms were licensed to log the old-growth forest in Clayaquot Sound; fishing companies were permitted to destroy the Grand Banks: in both cases these get-rich-quick schemes impoverished Canada and its reputation. But this is much worse, as it affects the whole world. The government's scheming at the climate talks is doing for its national image what whaling has done for Japan.

I will not pretend that this country is the only obstacle to an agreement at Copenhagen. But it is the major one. It feels odd to be writing this. The immediate threat to the global effort to sustain a peaceful and stable world comes not from Saudi Arabia or Iran or China. It comes from Canada. How could that be true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it was the MIA jdobbin

For the record. It is unusual to not see jdobbin on this forum. This is an unusually long time. I heope he is on holiday, lost his password to mlw, or computer is bunked. I'd even be comfortable if he was detained in a foreign country with his passport declined.

I do hope that he is not ill or that there is anything serious that has resulted in his disappearance from MLW.

madmax

Edited by madmax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

consensus updates reflective of the existing, most recent peer-review literature... that has occurred since the 2006 cutoff date for consideration towards the 2007 IPCC AR4 assessment report concerning climate change:

The Copenhagen Diagnosis - Executive Summary

The most significant recent climate change findings are:

Surging greenhouse gas emissions
: Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40% higher than those in 1990. Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present –day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a 25% probability that warming exceeds 2°C. Even with zero emissions after 2030. Every year of delayed action increase the chances of exceeding 2°C warming.

Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-based warming
: Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.190C per decade, in every good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas increases. Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short- term fluctuations are occurring as usual but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend.

Acceleration of melting of ice-sheets, glaciers and ice-caps
: A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has also accelerated since 1990.

Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline
: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. This area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.

Current sea-level rise underestimates
: Satellites show great global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be 80% above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets.

Sea-level prediction revised
: By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4, for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as – 2 meters sea-level rise by 2100. Sea-level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperature have been stabilized and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries.

Delay in action risks irreversible damage
: Several vulnerable elements in the climate system (e.g. continental ice-sheets. Amazon rainforest, West African monsoon and others) could be pushed towards abrupt or irreversible change if warming continues in a business-as-usual way throughout this century. The risk of transgressing critical thresholds (“tipping points”) increase strongly with ongoing climate change. Thus waiting for higher levels of scientific certainty could mean that some tipping points will be crossed before they are recognized.

The turning point must come soon
: If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2°C above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilize climate, a decarbonized global society – with near-zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases – need to be reached well within this century. More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well under 1 metric ton CO2 by 2050. This is 80-90% below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TrueMetis

I find the so called "debunking" of this list to be among the most bizarre claims of alarmists because their arguments make no sense. I don't know if the reaction is because they are afraid of having their world view challengded with facts or but the see themselves as warriors in the battle to manufacture the consensus.

In any case you should read the FAQ.

Note this explanation:

Most rational people would accept this explanation and would recognize that finding a problem with a few names does not, in any way, invalidate the entire list. That said, I realize that alarmists are not rational.

That petition only has 36 climatologists on it. The majority of scientists that signed it aren't even it the relevant field. It doesn't even give the names of scientists with there field next to them so in order to find out whether the climate scientists have any merit you would have to go through every single name to find the climatologists. This who things reeks of the same stink the creationists gave off when they started talking about a petition signed by hundreds of scientists that "denied" evolution. Of those less than a percent were biologists, only 2 actually denied evolution the rest had to sue to get their names removed.

This seems like the same thing.

oh and apparently

The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.

"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," said Peter Doran associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and one of the survey's authors.

"Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

However, Doran was not surprised by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it.

"The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," said Doran.

My link

Personally, I ignore this list because counting up numbers of scientists is meanlingless. It only takes one scientist to prove that 10,000 are wrong. However, this list does demonstrate that the opinion of the leadership of professional societies does not necessarily represent the opinion of their members.

This is the opinion of people not in the relevant field and is completely worthless.

Here is a question for you. Do you deny evolution? If you don't why do you put global climate change through more scrutiny? I agree people should be skeptical but in you case it seems like you are just picking on the science you don't like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... it was the MIA jdobbin
For the record. It is unusual to not see jdobbin on this forum. This is an unusually long time. I heope he is on holiday, lost his password to mlw, or computer is bunked. I'd even be comfortable if he was detained in a foreign country with his passport declined.

I do hope that he is not ill or that there is anything serious that has resulted in his disappearance from MLW.

madmax

absolutely - jdobbin is missed... MLW is just not the same (without Argus' gatekeeper)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

added emphasis to the recent findings of the continued/accelerated Arctic Ice meltdown... from David Barber, Canada Research Chair in Arctic System Science at the University of Manitoba... noted in this previous MLW post:

from the Aug09 International Symposium on Climate Change held in Nuuk, Greenland (as organized by the National Space Institute at Technical University of Denmark, the Danish Meteorological Institute and the Greenland Climate Center; sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the Nordic Council of Ministers):

The Arctic climate is changing drastically and rapidly

The conference showed that the Arctic climate is changing rapidly in a number of different ways:

* The recent rate of decrease in thickness and volume of the Arctic sea ice has been faster than the rate of aerial shrinkage determined from satellites. Given that the present trend of melt continues, some models indicate that it is quite likely that the Arctic Ocean could be ice free in the summer time as early as 2015-16.

* There has been a rapid increase in the mass-loss from the Greenland ice sheet during the last decade. Increased surface melting accounts for around 40% of this increase while iceberg calving from glaciers account for the remaining 60%

* The total mass-loss from the Greenland ice sheet has averaged 240 cubic kilometers of ice per year during the last 5 years. The mass-loss has been accelerating in the last couple of years.

* If the present warming trend continues, melt-water from the Greenland ice sheet will contribute to a sea-level rise of around 1 meter in this century – together with melt-water from other ice sheets and ocean thermal expansion

* The mass-loss of the ice-sheet at the margins is increasing and spreading north. Up until now, the mass-loss has been concentrated in the southern part of the Greenland ice-sheet. And while the inland part of the ice sheet is still growing at a small rate each year, this rate is now also declining.

* The warming oceans play a bigger role in melting and accelerating the glacier tongues from the Greenland ice sheet than has previously been thought. Furthermore, melt water from the ice sheet which penetrates the glaciers through crevasses accelerates the outflow by lubricating the bottom of the glacier.

* The permafrost in Greenland as well as globally is warming and in some areas thawing. Currently, construction regulations do not take this into account. Road damage has been observed and further damage on infrastructure is likely in the near future because of these combined effects.

no problem mon... don't worry - be happy... skeptic/deniers say global warming will be a "good thing", value add for Canada!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That petition only has 36 climatologists on it. The majority of scientists that signed it aren't even it the relevant field.
You need to put this petitition in context. Waldo started by whingeing about all of these professional societies that had issued statements about AGW and tried to suggest that these statements written by a small committees had some connection with the opinions of the majority of the members. In all cases the professional societies had scientists from a wide range of backgrounds and very few (if any) were climatologists yet that did not stop Waldo from invoking the implied support of the 46,000 members of the APS (for example) as evidence of an overwhelming consensus.

Given that context the petitition is a valid demonstration that there is no overwhelming consensus and alarmists who point to the statements by the various professional societies as evidence of this alleged consensus are blowing hot air. I also have seen no evidence that the majority of names on the list are not valid and there is no reason to believe it is not. Any trip to a sceptic board like ClimateAudit would undercover a lot of scientists who dispute the consensus and would sign something like that.

I do not claim the list has any relevance beyond that.

This is the opinion of people not in the relevant field and is completely worthless.
You mean it is worthless as long as don't support AGW alarmism. Alarmists are hypocrites that way.
Here is a question for you. Do you deny evolution?
The creationism/evolution debate has no relevance to AGW because creationism is not science. Primarily because it uses the 'god did it' excuse to explain away any inconsistencies so there is no incentive to expand our understanding by collecting new evidence and developing new theories.
I agree people should be skeptical but in you case it seems like you are just picking on the science you don't like.
The trouble is AGW is stuck in mode where it has become a pseudo-religion where practioners reject anything that does not conform to the narrow IPCC orthodoxy. They protect the orthodoxy by ignoring the uncertainies in the evidence supporting the orthodoxy and by demanding a much higher standard of evidence for theories that go against the orthodoxy. This means it is impossible to have any discussion about AGW without first picking apart the orthodoxy and demonstrating that there is, in fact, a debate. Once that it done it would be possible to have many interesting discussions about alternative theories which are, obviously, equally uncertain. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do hope that he is not ill or that there is anything serious that has resulted in his disappearance from MLW.

madmax

Nah. When he usually disappears, it's because the LPC have stopped sending him his monthly internet propaganda cheque. He doesn't work for free you know! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

China has world's largest Solar heating industry. Maybe Canada can learn something from it.

The Sun-Moon Mansion at the headquarters of Himin Solar Energy

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/05/0514_green_china_awardees/11.htm

The Solar warter heating systems on the roof of the buildings in china:

http://www.pbase.com/lambsfeathers/image/28337854

http://i45.tinypic.com/1e572w.jpg

http://i50.tinypic.com/2vvkupc.jpg

http://i49.tinypic.com/161ltzo.jpg

http://i45.tinypic.com/2dcbzhf.jpg

http://i49.tinypic.com/vmyek7.jpg

http://i47.tinypic.com/2ngs7t1.jpg

http://i45.tinypic.com/sq19iq.jpg

An introduction video on that:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate change is going to happen no matter what we humans do on this planet.

I don't buy into this whole GW stuff is man-made. I also have a real big problem with the vendetta against CO2. I am more concerned with carbom-monoxide, which is worse. One very simple way of offsetting the carbon emissions is to simply plant more trees and have more vegitation around to absorbe the CO2 and produce oxygen for us humans and other life on the planet.

Global warmin when/if it does will be a huge economic mess. Simply because we are not as nomadic as we used to be. Low lying cities, and coastal cities will change because of it. Sea levels rise, many are going to have to simply move to another location. It will be costly to relocate infrastructure and the like.

30 years we were being warned about global cooling. So I can't really take this seriously.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295&ei=fbYVS5aGLcKDlgfm0YS_AQ&q=global+warning#

Link to comment
Share on other sites

at no time has a cooling planet ever been the accepted consensus of climatologists
You are right. Back in the 70s scientists believed in science - not manufactured consensus. That meant difference scientists could have different opinions without worrying about being blackballed by their collegues and the legions of rent-seeking activists.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right. Back in the 70s scientists believed in science - not manufactured consensus. That meant difference scientists could have different opinions without worrying about being blackballed by their collegues and the legions of rent-seeking activists.

whaaaa! The Riverwind-McIntyre whinefest continues

more of your manufactured consensus absurdity... that overwhelming consensus of scientists accepting to the reality of AGW climate change is real, absolute and unshakable. But hey now... what about the real manufactured consensus of skeptic/denier scientists? Note the emphasis on "real scientists"... as distinct from "blog scientists"! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whaaaa! The Riverwind-McIntyre whinefest continues

more of your manufactured consensus absurdity... that overwhelming consensus of scientists accepting to the reality of AGW climate change is real, absolute and unshakable. But hey now... what about the real manufactured consensus of skeptic/denier scientists? Note the emphasis on "real scientists"... as distinct from "blog scientists"! :lol:

Any scientist who has "absolute and unshakable" belief in an unverifiable hypothesis does not deserve to be called a scientist.

correction to your reading comprehension impaired distortion... as stated, "that overwhelming consensus of scientists accepting to the reality of AGW climate change is real, absolute and unshakable". Now, if the denier camp actually had anything, it might begin to draw down upon that overwhelming consensus of scientists that hold to the theory of AGW climate change. But they don't... the deniers have nothing, short of a denial campaign orchestrated to obfuscate, smear, distort, misinform - "smoke, mirrors and hot air"... the deniers marching orders!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canadian winters have short days and are below freezing. All of the energy would go into stopping the water from freezing.

you have no idea what your talking about, there has been solar heated water in Canada for at least 20 years summer AND WINTER!...it appears you're not the all knowing science expert you think you are...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

correction to your reading comprehension impaired distortion... as stated, "that overwhelming consensus of scientists accepting to the reality of AGW climate change is real, absolute and unshakable". Now, if the denier camp actually had anything, it might begin to draw down upon that overwhelming consensus of scientists that hold to the theory of AGW climate change. But they don't... the deniers have nothing, short of a denial campaign orchestrated to obfuscate, smear, distort, misinform - "smoke, mirrors and hot air"... the deniers marching orders!

a hypothesis that withstands repeated challenges becomes accepted Theory, once accepted the onus is those who disagree with it to supply the evidence that it is wrong...and that hasn't happened, there has been a glaring absence of evidence presented that refutes AGW, and blogs by the unqualified and politically motivated chat room experts don't count as evidence that needs to be responded to...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

India's carbon emission target...

India reveals carbon emission targets

India became the last of the "big four" polluters to reveal its opening hand in the negotiations today, ahead of the crucial climate change talks in Copenhagen next week.

Government sources revealed the country could curb the carbon emitted relative to the growth of its economy – its carbon intensity – by 24% by 2020.

The leaked figure days after the announcement last week that China would cut its carbon intensity by more than 40% by 2020. The EU has already pledged a 20% cut in carbon emissions by 2020 – set to rise to 30% if other developed countries match the European target – while the US last month proposed cuts of 17%. These four are expected to emit almost two-thirds of the carbon between now and 2050.

Comparing the targets is complicated. India and China's target are for carbon intensity, but they at least use the same base year, 2005. The EU uses 1990 as a base year, while the US uses 2005. But
observers see all the targets as below what scientists say are needed to give an even chance of keeping temperature rise below the dangerous limit of 2C
.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smoke an mirrors designed to fool the sheep.

is that your excuse for claiming solar heated water won't work in Canada's climate...you were "blinded by smoke and mirrors that fool the sheep"?...or is it that you just choose to close your eyes when it's convenient to you..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...