EAU Data Suggests Warming Ended In 1997

TimG · January 30, 2012

of course, you fail to mention Lomborg isn't a scientist - has no background in climate science... is a poli-sci guy.

As I said before - climate scientists have absolutely nothing useful to say about how society should respond to climate climate. In fact, a poli-sci guy is MORE qualified to have an opinion on the best social response to climate change than any "climate scientist". This argument is simply proving my point I made earlier: your devotion to the global warming cult requires you to demean and denigrate any who oppose the IPCC canon.

of Lomborg's famously miraculous and convenient shift from renowned "skeptic" to (supposedly) accepting the science that supports CC/AGW

Again - this is another one of your false narratives. Lomborg has never changed his opinion on the science - he had always accepted the IPCC premises. The only thing that changed is some global warming propogandists actually read what he said. If there was a conversion it was because the global warming propogandists are starting to realize that their tactic of demonizing anyone who opposes the canon is backfiring. Edited January 30, 2012 by TimG

waldo · January 30, 2012

This argument is simply proving my point I made earlier: your devotion to the global warming cult requires you to demean and denigrate any who oppose the IPCC canon.

I thought you just said Lomborg accepted the... "IPCC canon"? Best you check your talking points.

Again - this is another one of your false narratives. Lomborg has never changed his opinion on the science - he had always accepted the IPCC premises. The only thing that changed is some global warming propogandists actually read what he said. If there was a conversion it was because the global warming propogandists are starting to realize that their tactic of demonizing anyone who opposes the canon is backfiring.

I see. So, according to you, when Lomborg's opinion wasn't being read, the consensus view was that he accepted the science (although one ponders what that consensus view was based upon if no one was reading him). And, according to you, when Lomborg's opinion was actually starting to be read, the previous consensus view of him was adjusted. :lol: But you just said it again! How can Lomborg be, as you say, "demonized", if you claim he accepts the "IPCC canon".

but yes, most certainly, a poli-sci guy could have legitimate input... but not one of the likes of Lomborg who has repeatedly been shown to incorrectly and improperly interpret the science to suit his purpose. I mentioned his background because you failed to while posturing about climate scientists... which Lomborg is not.

TimG · January 31, 2012

I thought you just said Lomborg accepted the... "IPCC canon"? Best you check your talking points.

No. You should learn to read. The IPCC cannon is not simply the "science" - it is this grotesque obession with mitigation as the only political response. I said Lomborg accepts the science which means WG1.

He gets demonized even after the ignorant alarmist propagandists figured he does not actually reject the IPCC scientfic claims because he still questions the IPCC canon (i.e. the political response to the science).

waldo · January 31, 2012

No. You should learn to read. The IPCC cannon is not simply the "science" - it is this grotesque obession with mitigation as the only political response. I said Lomborg accepts the science which means WG1.
He gets demonized even after the ignorant alarmist propagandists figured he does not actually reject the IPCC scientfic claims because he still questions the IPCC canon (i.e. the political response to the science).

clearly you know nothing of the intricacies of the Lomborg Deception... oh wait, you know it and choose to, in like deceptiveness, ply it to pump another of your false narratives - your, "Adapt-R-Us only", false narrative. Absolutely, most definitively, the IPCC stresses adaptation, mitigation and prevention. It goes to great lengths to apply facets of both adaptation and mitigation in complimentary strategies/approaches. This is just another example of you making shyte up.

TimG · January 31, 2012

clearly you know nothing of the intricacies of the Lomborg Deception

I bet you have never read his books cover to cover. I would be surprised if you have even read anything written by him other than selective quotes on your favorite alarmist echo chambers.

Absolutely, most definitively, the IPCC stresses adaptation, mitigation and prevention.

Or course - the IPCC is a garbage heap where a little of everything is tossed in so it can be trotted out when convenient. But you know perfectly well the IPCC canon is that immediate emission cuts under the auspices of a UN treaty is the only policy objective worth discussing. Your constant denigration people who favour the adaptation option is proof of that.

TimG · January 31, 2012

clearly you know nothing of the intricacies of the Lomborg Deception

I bet you have never read his books cover to cover. I would be surprised if you have even read anything written by him other than selective quotes on your favorite alarmist echo chambers.

Absolutely, most definitively, the IPCC stresses adaptation, mitigation and prevention.

Or course - the IPCC is a garbage heap where a little of everything is tossed in so it can be trotted out when convenient. But you know perfectly well the IPCC canon (i.e. the cult like belief system which treats the IPCC report as a bible) is that immediate emission cuts under the auspices of a UN treaty is the only policy objective worth discussing. Your constant denigration people who favour the adaptation option is proof of that. Edited January 31, 2012 by TimG

waldo · January 31, 2012

I bet you have never read his books cover to cover. I would be surprised if you have even read anything written by him other than selective quotes on your favorite alarmist echo chambers.

lets play. Assuming validity to your false claim that, as you stated, Lomborg truly and unequivocally accepts the physical science (WG1) basis that mankind's fossil-fuel burning and resultant CO2 emission creation is the causal link to global warming... and that Lomborg would form his positions based upon accepting that physical science basis, since you personally do not accept that same physical science basis, how do you justifiably presume to tout the person Lomborg and his proposed policy/positions?

Or course - the IPCC is a garbage heap where a little of everything is tossed in so it can be trotted out when convenient. But you know perfectly well the IPCC canon (i.e. the cult like belief system which treats the IPCC report as a bible) is that immediate emission cuts under the auspices of a UN treaty is the only policy objective worth discussing. Your constant denigration people who favour the adaptation option is proof of that.

great! Glad to see you recover and back-pedal from your earlier claim that mitigation is the only IPCC response. As I said, the overall IPCC strategy includes facets of all three approaches, mitigation, adaptation and prevention... combined and where applicable, complimentary. But please, keep beaking-off with your, "canon, bible, cult", mantra... it reads well on you!

TimG · January 31, 2012

since you personally do not accept that same physical science basis

What makes you think I have fundemental disagreements with the physical science as described in the WG1 report? I disagree with the endless alarmist spin in the SPM and feel the certainties are way overstated. I also have issues with how teh IPCC refuses to follow its own rules when it comes to managing the review process. But when it comes to the basic concepts I don't have much issue.

As I said, the overall IPCC strategy includes facets of all three approaches, mitigation, adaptation and prevention

The IPCC "strategy" is all mitigation. All I acknowledged was adaptation is mentioned by the IPCC - that does not make it a meaningful part of the IPCC "strategy". Edited January 31, 2012 by TimG

waldo · January 31, 2012

What makes you think I have fundemental disagreements with the physical science as described in the WG1 report? I disagree with the endless alarmist spin in the SPM and feel the certainties are way overstated. I l also have issues with how teh IPCC refuses to follow its own rules.

duh! I will quite readily quote, at length, the brazillion posts where you adamantly refuse to accept that anthropogenic sourced CO2 emission is the principal cause of accelerated warming... where you challenge this premise, at length, ad nauseaum, while refusing to ever offer your alternative principal causal link/tie. Of course, in my junkyard dog best, I have repeatedly asked you to state your alternative and support it. Still waiting...

now, if you have suddenly had a reawakening, if you have seen the light, if you have been reborn, if you now accept that anthropogenic sourced CO2 emission is the principal cause of accelerated warming, just say it. Say it!

The IPCC "strategy" is all mitigation. All I acknowledged was adaptation is mentioned by the IPCC - that does not make it a meaningful part of the IPCC "strategy".

no - it is most definitively not "all mitigation"... would you like me to link you to relevant IPCC sections/reports that speak to the requirements for adaptation? So you can simply dismiss them, outright? You're nothing but a blowhard who presumes to falsely interpret IPCC positions/reports... and strategy.

GostHacked · January 31, 2012

no - it is most definitively not "all mitigation"... would you like me to link you to relevant IPCC sections/reports that speak to the requirements for adaptation? So you can simply dismiss them, outright? You're nothing but a blowhard who presumes to falsely interpret IPCC positions/reports... and strategy.

I equate it to a hospital scenario. The hospitals make money on cancer patients. There is nothing ever, EVER about cancer prevention (which can happen) but there is a whole lot of cancer treatment and possibly a cure. But there are so many things we can do in our lives to prevent cancer.

So the global warming, climate change .. or whatever moniker you want to put on it, is all about treatment and not the cure. As long as I can pay for it, I can pollute. It's as simple as that. So yes, the global carbon trading market and carbon credits are about mitigation, actually to me they are not even about mitigation either, it's about money.

Michael Hardner · January 31, 2012

As long as I can pay for it, I can pollute. It's as simple as that. So yes, the global carbon trading market and carbon credits are about mitigation, actually to me they are not even about mitigation either, it's about money.

We should note that a Republican administration came up with trading systems as a way for industry to deal with emissions with less government involvement. The case study worked quite well, and if this plan was set up and administered properly there's no reason to think it wouldn't.

We have heard discouraging things about said system, though.

Shady · January 31, 2012

We should note that a Republican administration came up with trading systems as a way for industry to deal with emissions with less government involvement. The case study worked quite well, and if this plan was set up and administered properly there's no reason to think it wouldn't.

We have heard discouraging things about said system, though.

I'm not sure that it works very well. Has it worked in Europe? However, it seems like a great way to send industries overseas and cause more economic hardship on the middle class.

Michael Hardner · January 31, 2012

I'm not sure that it works very well. Has it worked in Europe? However, it seems like a great way to send industries overseas and cause more economic hardship on the middle class.

I said that the case study worked quite well. The case study was a US-only example, as it was an American government (Republican) solution.

Michael Hardner · January 31, 2012

Also, since we export jobs en masse anyway, it's hard to see why we'd engage in dirty practices because they create jobs.

waldo · January 31, 2012

So the global warming, climate change .. or whatever moniker you want to put on it, is all about treatment and not the cure. As long as I can pay for it, I can pollute. It's as simple as that. So yes, the global carbon trading market and carbon credits are about mitigation, actually to me they are not even about mitigation either, it's about money.

no - I've shown that the current EU market has resulted in emission reductions... run a googly/MLW search (note: I've also emphasized my personal preference is the alternative tax/dividend approach). As I also said, prevention is a facet of the 3-pronged approach within mitigation/adaptation/prevention... of course, with the current state we're in/facing, prevention isn't the most immediate attention.

GostHacked · January 31, 2012

We should note that a Republican administration came up with trading systems as a way for industry to deal with emissions with less government involvement. The case study worked quite well, and if this plan was set up and administered properly there's no reason to think it wouldn't.

We have heard discouraging things about said system, though.

But it still allows polluters to pollute as long as they can pay for it. Money trading hands does not resolve the issue.

Shady · January 31, 2012

I said that the case study worked quite well. The case study was a US-only example, as it was an American government (Republican) solution.

Well, we have real examples of countries that have actually implemented such a system. In Europe is hasn't had much success.

Also, since we export jobs en masse anyway, it's hard to see why we'd engage in dirty practices because they create jobs.

Well, in terms of manufacturing, which cap and trade would significantly impact the most, it would increase the cost of doing business. Making them less competitive. Like I said, it's a great way to speed up outsourcing, and ultimately the relocation of businesses to areas where they don't have to worry about the same regulations and cost increases. I think it's a bad stategy for many reasons.

But it still allows polluters to pollute as long as they can pay for it. Money trading hands does not resolve the issue.

Exactly. It just changes the location of the polluter. Which in my opinion, is one of the desires of the scheme.

waldo · January 31, 2012

But it still allows polluters to pollute as long as they can pay for it. Money trading hands does not resolve the issue.

given your total focus/acceptance of applied measures has been on traditional 'toxic' emissions, I'm somewhat confused you wouldn't recognize a related success... and appreciate a parallel in the making!

Shady · January 31, 2012

given your total focus/acceptance of applied measures has been on traditional 'toxic' emissions, I'm somewhat confused you wouldn't recognize a related success... and appreciate a parallel in the making!

Too funny! Waldo links to a site called treehugger.com! :lol:

Sorry, I'm aware that the information may be totally legit, but it's still humourous! (no bias on that site, eh Waldo?)

Edited January 31, 2012 by Shady

Michael Hardner · January 31, 2012

But it still allows polluters to pollute as long as they can pay for it. Money trading hands does not resolve the issue.

You need to look at the original system to see that this statement is wrong.

Michael Hardner · January 31, 2012

Well, we have real examples of countries that have actually implemented such a system. In Europe is hasn't had much success.

Well, in terms of manufacturing, which cap and trade would significantly impact the most, it would increase the cost of doing business. Making them less competitive. Like I said, it's a great way to speed up outsourcing, and ultimately the relocation of businesses to areas where they don't have to worry about the same regulations and cost increases. I think it's a bad stategy for many reasons.

Exactly. It just changes the location of the polluter. Which in my opinion, is one of the desires of the scheme.

Ok - see my post to GH above.

waldo · January 31, 2012

Too funny! Waldo links to a site called treehugger.com!
Sorry, I'm aware that the information may be totally legit, but it's still humourous! (no bias on that site, eh Waldo?)

see Discovery Communications... and yes, there certainly is a bias, a proud one. Feel free to comment and/or challenge the actual article, hey?

cybercoma · February 1, 2012

Sorry, I'm aware that the information may be totally legit, but it's still humourous! (no bias on that site, eh Waldo?)

So you're aware that the information may be totally legit, but then you dismiss it as biased. :lol:

waldo · February 1, 2012

Waldo's issue shouldn't be with any journalists in this case, but others...

but hey now... have you nothing to add in terms of the official Met Office response to "journalist" David Rose's claims? Any particular reason you blindly accept the unsubstantiated tripe writings from British tabloids and in particular, a journalist... a journalist... one David Rose?

c'mon Shady - do the right thing! Change your thread title... do the right thing, hey?

clearly your fav British tabloid "journalist" made it all up - per (his) norm... either substantiate your/his claim, or change your thread title - do the right thing, Shady!