Jump to content

Copenhagen


Recommended Posts

Released just in time for the Copenhagen summit. A convenient truth, no doubt.

All the news before this was the concern that climate models had incorrectly predicted climate change since 1998? Or is that too inconvenient?

Maybe I can find a link for that claim?

Oh..here's one!

Note the IPCC acknowledged what she said.

surprise, surprise - Jennifer Marohasy, the well known skeptic/denier blogger... who just happens to be employed by the Institute of Public Affairs.

just because "she" stated the IPCC acknowledged what she said... whatever she said??? :lol: Certainly, her reputation appears to speak for itself: here, and here and here. BTW - what's the news you're referring to about, as you state, "All the news before this was the concern that climate models had incorrectly predicted climate change since 1998?" Any chance you could actually be a tad more specific... with "all the news" you're referring to?

but I digress... within MLW, we've previously discussed the robustness of model projections to temperature observations, both relative to longer-term trends reflective of the TAR models as well as the more 'suspect' short-term model projections to observations reflective of the AR4 models. Don't worry about those model projections to observed temperatures... the outcomes certainly validate the robustness of the models and certainly attest to the upward temperature trends.

and, of course, let's not forget the IPCC's own report details: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science

Oh and another...

here

still warming... just not as fast as the 90's warming... as wyly states, normal/anticipated natural variances factored into irregular short-term trending - that models accommodate for. As for comments attributed to Mojib Latif, we've already had a MLW exchange around that; examples of:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=15167&view=findpost&p=480829

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=15167&view=findpost&p=480861

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=15167&view=findpost&p=480873

We may be in the warmest decade in the last 160 years but the models don't predict what they should have if "anthropogenic" warming were the determining factor.

We have already reached the peak and now we are in the warmest decade on record? It dropped and then plateaued but it is still the warmest...hmm...further study on my part is necessary I think. Do you think you should study some more too, Waldo or are you pretty much settled in?

could you perhaps clarify what, as you state, "the models don't predict"... perhaps a citation to support/clarify your statement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 506
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The plan proposed would cost billions of dollars and would erode our economy as a whole by 2% from it's present rate in Canada. That is a massive amount of of jobs and money which would be lost from Canada alone. A 2% reduction in economy is akin to a massive recession, just fyi.

A plan like this would cost $19 billion to implement and would cost the Canadian economy $45 billion. Where would we recoup this money from?

Higher user rates and and higher prices for everything from Cars and houses to food and diapers. No thank you we have high enough prices. The environment isn't a big deal, everything is just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh yeah that's a real honest scientific method, cherry picking a starting date of 1998 an el Niño year lol...automatic fail with that attempt...

Wait! Wait! Wait! It says "Scientists stumped". Plain and simple the scientific models were wrong!

wow that's a great link, try understand what you read next time before you give a link that supports Climate Change...temperatures never rise or falls in straight lines...there are rises, falls and plateaus that's the way it always has been and always will be, it's why they plot data on graphs to determine trends.... :rolleyes:

Wait! Wait! Wait! Plain and simple the scientific models were wrong!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I trust you didn't actually pay money for that mythical movie... skeptic/deniers just keep on recycling that ole myth - well done capricorn! Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s... study: THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

Now Waldo! The studies prior to the debunking were all forecasting a global iceage.

And that's the point. what will you say twenty years form now when "Anthropogenic" global warming is debunked?

Don't you be worrying bout Al... his long standing environmental activism through his 30+ year Congressional and Vice-Presidential periods is on record to certainly attest to how far back he actually did catch on.

Al started the whole thing along withthe internet. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This problem is getting pretty damned difficult to deal with. I will suggest the smartest move is to simply leave it alone and start spending money on alternative energy. Go with tax cuts to do it and dump some money into research and development at the federal and provincial levels. Leave global warming alone! Let the science settle out, but don't jump on ANY bandwagons that will see this nation involved in carbon taxes or cap and trade or anything like that at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

surprise, surprise - Jennifer Marohasy, the well known skeptic/denier blogger... who just happens to be employed by the Institute of Public Affairs.

Every scientist that doesn't agree is debunked it seems. Is there a pattern here?

just because "she" stated the IPCC acknowledged what she said... whatever she said??? :lol: Certainly, her reputation appears to speak for itself: here, and here and here. BTW - what's the news you're referring to about, as you state, "All the news before this was the concern that climate models had incorrectly predicted climate change since 1998?" Any chance you could actually be a tad more specific... with "all the news" you're referring to?

I was hoping to not have to find a hundred references for you,they are there and the IPCC confirms, your favoured source of information, stated that the scientific climate models did not predict what from 1999 to 2009.

but I digress... within MLW, we've previously discussed the robustness of model projections to temperature observations, both relative to longer-term trends reflective of the TAR models as well as the more 'suspect' short-term model projections to observations reflective of the AR4 models. Don't worry about those model projections to observed temperatures... the outcomes certainly validate the robustness of the models and certainly attest to the upward temperature trends.

You previously discussed them but the "robustness of model projections" was called to attention by even your own sources. It's simple to understand - it's not the theory of relativity. ......the models certainly did point to an upward temperature trend.....which did not materialize. Now how much did the temperature rise over the last

century. I think it was .8C. If antrhopogenic factors were the prime reason for that rise then, and I think the models should have predicted it and did, the temperature should have risen in the last decade. They didn't.

could you perhaps clarify what, as you state, "the models don't predict"... perhaps a citation to support/clarify your statement

Is there a pattern here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This problem is getting pretty damned difficult to deal with. I will suggest the smartest move is to simply leave it alone and start spending money on alternative energy. Go with tax cuts to do it and dump some money into research and development at the federal and provincial levels. Leave global warming alone! Let the science settle out, but don't jump on ANY bandwagons that will see this nation involved in carbon taxes or cap and trade or anything like that at all.

The sensible and not the political approach you mean!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course. While we are at it we will increase employment in our own nation and from what I understand be able to step into a vast growth market, that of alternative energy devices for export.
And why would our businesses making such stuff be better able to complete with the businesses being promoted by every other government?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waldo, what is your empirical observation, forget the scientists and the quotes and all the studies and the pictures of garbage dumps and ice falling off glaciers into the sea and coral reefs dying off and polar bears becoming extinct and fishing stocks depleted and peak oil and all those ethereal things, what is your empirical observation, I know it may seem worthless without all that ethereal information, but what is your empirical observation of what is going on around you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why would our businesses making such stuff be better able to complete with the businesses being promoted by every other government?

Niche marketing. 80 percent of the world is poor, that is the target audience. All of those little cities in India and China. Design and construct basically off grid systems for Canadians and you will be building exactly what you need for the targeted export market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again. What makes you think that Canadian made products would compete any better than Chinese made products in those markets?

I simply believe that since we need this stuff we should do it for ourselves. If it works, and I think it would, then we could take the show on the road. It beats buying foreign products and employs our own people. It keeps a dollars in country and would serve well to increase employment. In addition it may even provide an added revenue stream for the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why don't we do that for electronics, clothing or toys?

You're straying away from the original intent, I think. Aren't we talking about innovative products? Electronics, clothing and toys can be manufactured more cheaply by others right now - when they catch up we can start making our own again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The plan proposed would cost billions of dollars and would erode our economy as a whole by 2% from it's present rate in Canada. That is a massive amount of of jobs and money which would be lost from Canada alone. A 2% reduction in economy is akin to a massive recession, just fyi.

A plan like this would cost $19 billion to implement and would cost the Canadian economy $45 billion. Where would we recoup this money from?

Higher user rates and and higher prices for everything from Cars and houses to food and diapers. No thank you we have high enough prices. The environment isn't a big deal, everything is just fine.

2% is very little. Our productivity grows, on average, more than 2% per year.

Stats Canada - Productivity Growth - See Table 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when did they figure out that there was more money to be made ? Before the scientists started cooking the numbers or after ? Who planned the whole thing ? The whole plot, I mean ?

There is no plot, just opportunism. The veracity of early or current scientific evidence was and is irrelevant to Gore simply because he has no credentials on matters of climate change.

Gore first introduced us to his one—time Harvard professor, Dr. Roger Revelle in his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance, and refers to him again in his new film, An Inconvenient Truth. He credits the professor with being the man who originally influenced his views regarding the dangers of global warming. The implication is, therefore, made that his mentor also blames everything but nature for shifting global weather patterns.

It is true that Dr. Revelle's early research papers exploring the relationship between rising atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures are considered by many to be the opening salvo in the global warming debate.

And yet, based on his new movie, Gore would appear to have suffered convenient selective amnesia when telling the story of his guru and erstwhile college professor. You see, when Dr. Revelle co—authored an article

entitled 'What to Do About Greenhouse Warming: Look Before you Leap,' which appeared in the April 1991 issue of Cosmos magazine, the student's treatment of the teacher was anything but reverent.

Regrettably, Dr. Revelle died three months after the article was published. It concluded that

'The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time,'

---

Its contrarian message was that Earth is, in fact, not in the balance. As luck would have it for Gore, the reaction to the original article and its conclusions was quite lukewarm. This was likely due to the limited readership of the magazine at that time.

However, when the piece was cited over a year later in a New Republic article by Gregg Easterbrook, the climate got decidedly warmer. You see, the piece also suggested that Gore,

"the bright light of political environmentalism, seems increasingly to believe that the only correct stance is to press the panic button on every issue."

As described by one of Revelle's coauthors, Dr. S. Fred Singer in his personal account, 'The Revelle—Gore Story:'

'The contradiction between what Senator Gore wrote about what he learned from Dr. Revelle and what Dr. Revelle had written in the Cosmos article embarrassed Senator Gore, who had become the leading candidate for the vice presidential slot of the Democratic Party.'

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/06/gores_grave_new_world.html

As a result, Revelle, who was once Gore's mentor, became an enemy of his aspirations.

Stage two of the story began in 1988 when, with remarkable speed, the global warming story was elevated into a ruling orthodoxy, partly due to hearings in Washington chaired by a youngish senator, Al Gore, who had studied under Dr Revelle in the 1960s.

---

Kyoto initiated stage three of the story, by formally committing governments to drastic reductions in their CO2 emissions. But the treaty still had to be ratified and this seemed a good way off, not least thanks to its rejection in 1997 by the US Senate, despite the best attempts of Mr Gore.

Not the least of his efforts was his bid to suppress an article co-authored by Dr Revelle just before his death. Gore didn't want it to be known that his guru had urged that the global warming thesis should be viewed with more caution.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3312921/The-deceit-behind-global-warming.html#comments

It seems to me Gore's initial foray into the global warming arena was to raise his political fortunes. Along the way, he found ways to make money on the fear of global warming. If he couldn't win the Presidency, he would damn well make money off global warming fanaticism. Oh, and wait for it. An Inconvenient Truth will be transformed into an opera in 2011.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/la-scala-to-stage-opera-of-an-inconvenient-truth-836767.html

The royalties just keep rolling in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now Waldo! The studies prior to the debunking were all forecasting a global iceage.

And that's the point. what will you say twenty years form now when "Anthropogenic" global warming is debunked?

Al started the whole thing along withthe internet. :)

no - actually... if you bothered to read the links supplied... to actually give even a passing acknowledgment to the paper that reviewed "the studies", you will note that the vast majority of the studies were speaking to global warming, the next highest percentage of "the studies" were classified as neutral on the issue... while a small percentage of "the studies" were actually speaking to, as you state, "forecasting a global iceage". Why do you continue to perpetuate the myth?

well... of course... poor ole Al takes another hit from the uninformed - don't let the fact he never used the word "invent" hold anyone back from taking pot shots. It's easy... all you (and capricorn) need is a keyboard...

- from
, the so-called "father of the Internet" => re:
:

VP Gore was the first or surely among the first of the members of Congress to become a strong supporter of advanced networking while he served as Senator. As far back as 1986, he was holding hearings on this subject (supercomputing, fiber networks...) and asking about their promise and what could be done to realize them. Bob Kahn, with whom I worked to develop the Internet design in 1973, participated in several hearings held by then-Senator Gore and I recall that Bob introduced the term ``information infrastructure'' in one hearing in 1986. It was clear that as a Senator and now as Vice President, Gore has made it a point to be as well-informed as possible on technology and issues that surround it.

As Senator, VP Gore was highly supportive of the research community's efforts to explore new networking capabilities and to extend access to supercomputers by way of NSFNET and its successors, the High Performance Computing and Communication program (which included the National Research and Education Network initiative), and as Vice President, he has been very responsive to recommendations made, for example, by the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee that endorsed additional research funding for next generation fundamental research in software and related topics. If you look at the last 30-35 years of network development, you'll find many people who have made major contributions without which the Internet would not be the vibrant, growing and exciting thing it is today. The creation of a new information infrastructure requires the willing efforts of thousands if not millions of participants and we've seen leadership from many quarters, all of it needed, to move the Internet towards increased availability and utility around the world.

While it is not accurate to say that VP Gore invented Internet, he has played a powerful role in policy terms that has supported its continued growth and application, for which we should be thankful.

We're fortunate to have senior level members of Congress and the Administration who embrace new technology and have the vision to see how it can be put to work for national and global benefit.

-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no plot, just opportunism. The veracity of early or current scientific evidence was and is irrelevant to Gore simply because he has no credentials on matters of climate change.

Gore never claimed to be a scientist, obviously. Essentially... he played the role of facilitator, presenting scientific consensus in a 'packaged' manner. Either side of the debate should easily accept that, if nothing else, his involvement has helped to raise international public awareness of climate change and to reenergize environmental consciousness.

anything else is just attacking the messenger... cause one doesn't care for the message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no plot, just opportunism. The veracity of early or current scientific evidence was and is irrelevant to Gore simply because he has no credentials on matters of climate change.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/06/gores_grave_new_world.html

As a result, Revelle, who was once Gore's mentor, became an enemy of his aspirations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3312921/The-deceit-behind-global-warming.html#comments

It seems to me Gore's initial foray into the global warming arena was to raise his political fortunes. Along the way, he found ways to make money on the fear of global warming. If he couldn't win the Presidency, he would damn well make money off global warming fanaticism. Oh, and wait for it. An Inconvenient Truth will be transformed into an opera in 2011.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/la-scala-to-stage-opera-of-an-inconvenient-truth-836767.html

The royalties just keep rolling in.

There is the little matter of the passage of years in between these events.

But, Gore MUST be evil in order for your argument to make sense, right ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every scientist that doesn't agree is debunked it seems. Is there a pattern here?

buddy, if you're going to offer a link that quotes directly from a well known denier blogger... while presenting it as some form of independent review/comment... you should expect to be challenged with highlights to both the background and scientific ignorance of the denier blogger. Simply stated, you should have checked her out more completely - don't blame me if your go-to denier blogger has no credence.

I was hoping to not have to find a hundred references for you,they are there and the IPCC confirms, your favoured source of information, stated that the scientific climate models did not predict what from 1999 to 2009.

I offered you a link to a previous MLW post that addressed both longer-term and relatively shorter-term comparisons of models to observations... in this latest reply I also offered you a link to the actual pertinent section within the IPCC AR4 report that speaks to model comparisons to observations. Don't be shy in presenting your own references... nor don't be hesitant to suggest what the, as you state, "the IPCC confirms"... actually confirms in terms of who said what, what was said and in what context (of course, if you simply revert back to your denier blogger...)

The IPCC models and their responses are publicly available - you should have no difficulty presenting your sources that would presume to question the model responses.

You previously discussed them but the "robustness of model projections" was called to attention by even your own sources. It's simple to understand - it's not the theory of relativity. ......the models certainly did point to an upward temperature trend.....which did not materialize. Now how much did the temperature rise over the last century. I think it was .8C. If antrhopogenic factors were the prime reason for that rise then, and I think the models should have predicted it and did, the temperature should have risen in the last decade. They didn't.

Is there a pattern here?

Again, perhaps you could actually offer specifics... which of, as you state, "my sources", have, as you state, "called to attention", the, as I state, "robustness of model projections"?

You appear to be unaware of the impacts of natural variability to the respective long-term vs. short-term trending. In any case, as confirmed by GISS data, the last decades observed warming is consistent with the IPCC model projections of an AGW warming trend of 0.2 Cº... superimposed with natural variance.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...