Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

Moonbox · September 29, 2012

but, but... you threw down a teaser... but failed to qualify that the amount reflected upon the so-called start-up component of the fund.

I asked you numerous times, in numerous different ways, how much money the Green Climate Fund has collected so far. I'll ask one more time, without teasers, without mockery:

How much money has the Green Climate Fund collected so far?

I can't ask the question any more clearly than that. The answer will give you a good indication on how tepid the support is for it, but I doubt you want to know or talk about that.

your updated... what? Is there a missing proofread here?

Seems so! Imagine if every second sentence was written this poorly! That would make a great read wouldn't??? :lol:

waldo · September 30, 2012

but, but... you threw down a teaser... but failed to qualify that the amount reflected upon the so-called start-up component of the fund. What? Didn't Wikipedia give you that to add to your teaser? I'm truly interested in the path you followed in just a few short days... to suddenly speak so authoritatively - a reference would certainly help you make your point. I'm not sure why you're so hesitant to respond to my multiple requests for you to divulge your reference(s). In any case, as I asked, "Will your insightful link(s) address the many creative options being considered to fund... the fund?". Well, will they?

I asked you numerous times, in numerous different ways, how much money the Green Climate Fund has collected so far. I'll ask one more time, without teasers, without mockery:

How much money has the Green Climate Fund collected so far?

I can't ask the question any more clearly than that. The answer will give you a good indication on how tepid the support is for it, but I doubt you want to know or talk about that.

without the mockery? You pompous ***! Days back you start off saying you know diddly squat about the historical and more recent climate negotiations. In a span of days you're suddenly an expert... throwing down your fund assessment... without having any understanding, as I emphasized, that your figure reflected upon the "start-up" component of the fund - associated with 'fast start financing' over the years 2010-2012... having nothing to do with the greater world-nations commitment (as measly as it is), to raise/target $100 billion U.S. a year by 2020. And you're the self-acclaimed "mocker"! :lol:

of course, I also asked you, several times, whether or not your new-found "expertise" allowed you to recognize the numerous creative options being 'floated' for the larger financing efforts... why, I do believe I... I... mocked your Wikipedia prowess! The gold, the real mocking gold, shines through when your pomposity has you continually junkyard dog barking over how much has been pledged/collected so far... all your BS about "tepid support". I guess Wiki didn't alert you to the pertinent fact that the very first meeting, ever, of the UN's Green Climate Fund, only occurred some 3 weeks back now. Hey, wasn't it me advising you it was early in the process, that the fund is in its start-up period, that there's a long way between now and 2020 for meeting the greater financing, that the fund is but one vehicle towards meeting the $100 billion commitment...

you're the mocker!!! :lol:

I already provided my updated.

your updated... what? Is there a missing proofread here?

Seems so! Imagine if every second sentence was written this poorly! That would make a great read wouldn't???

you could imagine that... in order to attempt to cover-up your sorry-***** failures in bringing anything of substance forward. I typically have better things to do than grovel to the depths of your Grammar Policing role; however, if you pay well, I may engage and bring forward more... more... of your own gems that will solidify my earlier questioning of your credentials to lead the MLW Grammar Police and/or highlight the continued failings in your self-described, per-post, self-editing regimen. By the by, I forever wondered why most of your posts always carried an edit notice... thanks for providing the answer! :lol:

TimG · September 30, 2012

How much money has the Green Climate Fund collected so far?

Another issue threatening the GCF is the insecurity of its funding. It does look as though the Fast Start Funding goal of $30 billion for the period 2010-2012 will be made. This is when only looking at the pledges though, because so far, only $11.3 billion has actually been delivered (i.e. been transferred to the account of the GCF). It seems as if ‘the global economic crisis and national austerity measures have reduced the willingness of rich countries to commit to filling the coffers of the fund with public monies’.[15] As far as the Long Term Funding is concerned, funding might be secured through the implementation of the proposals of the High Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing. However, these are somewhat controversial because they place the major part of the burden of funding the GCF on the private sector.[13] This has been criticized by the developing countries,[27] who think that most of the promised money should still come from the developed nations’ governments themselves. They have been supported in this view by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.[15] There hasn’t been taken a final decision on the funding of the GCF during COP-17 in Durban,[16] which is why there remains a lot of uncertainty about where the funds should come from.
On top of the difficulties in securing the funds, there’s also the risk of countries totally pulling out of their commitments and pledges, just like Canada did at COP-17 in Durban. Its environmental minister, Peter Kent, declared that his country wouldn’t ‘devote scarce dollars to capitalize the new Green Climate Fund […] until all major emitters accept legally binding reduction targets and transparent accounting of greenhouse gas inventory’.[28] This was of course a serious setback for the GCF, and could prove to be a dangerous precedent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Climate_Fund Edited September 30, 2012 by TimG

GostHacked · September 30, 2012

Plant more trees. Plants have been able to handle scrubbing CO2 out of our atmosphere for a very very long time. Why all of a sudden it's looked at as a crazy idea? Since we have not reduced enough emissions and since we have devastated a good portion of forests globally it only makes more sense to plant some trees now while we wait for these people to actually make systems that work to get CO2 out.

Maybe I can go get some money off the trading market to help pay people to plant trees. People are ignoring the value of photosynthesis that takes place in plants.

Only true deniers overlook and ignore long standing science that is photosynthesis. The climate change mantras will fall by the wayside within a couple more years.

Climate is always changing, always had on this planet, always will. No matter if we are here or not.

Do we adapt to it or die trying to maintain the status quo?

waldo · September 30, 2012

shorter TimG - all I gots is Wiki

another Wiki expert! :lol: I note your bold-highlighting start-up amount mentioned isn't even cited... oh, right... it's Wiki! But hey now, I see you've also bold-highlight emphasized a Canada reference. Are you also prepared to state, bold-highlight emphatically, that Canada will not deliver on it's Green Climate Fund pledge? You know, the pledge that is supposed to be delivered in October, along with the pledges of many other countries. Didn't Wiki alert you to this? :lol:

like I said, I'm quite confused why you're not behind this fund, hey? Perhaps we just need you to utter one of your "It's impossible" pronouncements!

But really, c'mon, this fund is aimed, not entirely, but principally, to deal with adaptation requirements. Since you're the king of "Adapt-R-Us Inc.', this fund is right up your alley - yes?

Hey did't you just say something about... impossible... a few posts back! Wasn't so impossible, was it?

waldo · September 30, 2012

Plant more trees. Plants have been able to handle scrubbing CO2 out of our atmosphere for a very very long time. Why all of a sudden it's looked at as a crazy idea? Since we have not reduced enough emissions and since we have devastated a good portion of forests globally it only makes more sense to plant some trees now while we wait for these people to actually make systems that work to get CO2 out.
Maybe I can go get some money off the trading market to help pay people to plant trees. People are ignoring the value of photosynthesis that takes place in plants.

Only true deniers overlook and ignore long standing science that is photosynthesis. The climate change mantras will fall by the wayside within a couple more years.

oh... do you have something new to add to your "just plant trees" meme? Perhaps I'll just recycle a few (without the study references), hey?

no, I qualified the limitations, particularly as reflect upon diminishing gains (if any whatsoever), associated with northern/temperate latitudes... I also highlighted the emphasis on tropical forests, latitudes where gains can be realized given the nature of the trees and long extended ('continuous') growing seasons... I also highlighted the recent Cancun COP16 agreements to that end; i.e., REDD & global country commitments to expend monies in developing nations for reforestation/afforestation or compensations therein (again, emphasizing the tropical nature of said developing nations). Of course, as we're both acknowledging, this is not the first time we've had this related discussion... it's not the first time I've brought forward these same points (and more). However, none of this, none of what I bring forward seems to stick... to register... with you.

studies have shown that an effective mitigation might only arise within a tropical & sub-tropical climates/latitudes context where year round growth is possible - because active growth is the key. Additionally, northern/temperate latitudes are subject to albedo impacts and slow/shortened growth periods where, effectively, trees in northern/temperate latitudes have a net warming effect on climate outweighing their carbon sink abilities. And yet, even if growing trees could provide the offsetting mitigation, would there be any more of a global political will surface to that end, than that required to "simply" agree to reduced CO2 emission treaties? Would Canada, for instance, open it's borders to mass emigration brought upon by the need to shift whole populations of millions of people... in order to grow trees in land currently populated (or farmed) as a result of past deforestation - notwithstanding changing land use implications?

Moonbox · October 1, 2012

without the mockery? You pompous ***!

Seems someone's getting their panties twisted. :lol:

In a span of days you're suddenly an expert... throwing down your fund assessment... without having any understanding, as I emphasized, that your figure reflected upon the "start-up" component of the fund -

Three times I've specifically asked how much has been collected for the Green Climate Fund. Three times the answer has that the fund has received: "You-have-no-understanding" amount of money. That's cute. :rolleyes:

associated with 'fast start financing' over the years 2010-2012... having nothing to do with the greater world-nations commitment (as measly as it is), to raise/target $100 billion U.S. a year by 2020.

Right...The fact that the fund has collected next to nothing over the first two years has no bearing whatsoever on its success thus far, nor on the likelihood that the "commitments" will ever be met. That's interesting "logic". The industrialized world, you see, needs several years to stall gear up for this sort of commitment. I mean, it's not as if anyone's saying this is urgent or anything...

I guess Wiki didn't alert you to the pertinent fact that the very first meeting, ever, of the UN's Green Climate Fund, only occurred some 3 weeks back now. Hey, wasn't it me advising you it was early in the process, that the fund is in its start-up period

Cancun was winter 2010. They couldn't even put together HALF of the planned $30B in fast-start financing in nearly two years!! :lol:

if you pay well, I may engage and bring forward more... more... of your own gems that will solidify my earlier questioning of your credentials to lead the MLW Grammar Police

I typically don't interest myself much in other posters' grammar. Your writing, however, is incompetent to the point where people barely understand what you're saying. I wish you understood the irony of someone who regularly insults other posters' intelligence, yet can't unravel the mysteries of what makes a proper sentence.

waldo · October 1, 2012

Seems someone's getting their panties twisted.

oh no... panties twisted reads like this:

I think you're full of ****.

Days back you start off saying you know diddly squat about the historical and more recent climate negotiations. In a span of days you're suddenly an expert... throwing down your fund assessment... without having any understanding, as I emphasized, that your figure reflected upon the "start-up" component of the fund - associated with 'fast start financing' over the years 2010-2012...
Three times I've specifically asked how much has been collected for the Green Climate Fund. Three times the answer has that the fund has received: "You-have-no-understanding" amount of money. That's cute.

"The answer has that the"... hey now... can I get a grammar ruling here! :lol: Like I said, you threw down an amount while having a chuckle-fest over it - of course, after numerous requests you still refuse to cite your source... other than Wiki! C'mon, cite your source, oh expert one! More pointedly, in your pompous, new found "expertise", you didn't even understand there were two facets to the fund (start-up versus long-term).

... without having any understanding, as I emphasized, that your figure reflected upon the "start-up" component of the fund - associated with 'fast start financing' over the years 2010-2012... having nothing to do with the greater world-nations commitment (as measly as it is), to raise/target $100 billion U.S. a year by 2020.
Right...The fact that the fund has collected next to nothing over the first two years has no bearing whatsoever on its success thus far, nor on the likelihood that the "commitments" will ever be met. That's interesting "logic". The industrialized world, you see, needs several years to stall gear up for this sort of commitment. I mean, it's not as if anyone's saying this is urgent or anything...

two years??? Clearly, your comprehension prowess has you struggling, once again... and clearly, your Wiki "expertise" has failed you, once again, as the fund didn't actually launch until mid-Dec, 2011 at COP 17-Durban. Of course, if we actually knew where you sourced your figure, we could gauge how well it reflects upon the mid-Dec, 2011 initiation point... couldn't we? Hey, I get it - that's why you refuse to reveal your source! :lol:

I guess Wiki didn't alert you to the pertinent fact that the very first meeting, ever, of the UN's Green Climate Fund, only occurred some 3 weeks back now. Hey, wasn't it me advising you it was early in the process, that the fund is in its start-up period, that there's a long way between now and 2020 for meeting the greater financing, that the fund is but one vehicle towards meeting the $100 billion commitment...
Cancun was winter 2010. They couldn't even put together HALF of the planned $30B in fast-start financing in nearly two years!!

Cancun??? Hey now, why didn't you reference back to Copenhagen, 2009? Didn't your Wiki "expertise" alert you to legal framework for the fund being established at Copenhagen? Here, let me guide you in your failed timeline for the fund: Copenhagen - legal framework agreed upon; Cancun - operating and financial mechanisms agreed upon; Durban - launch agreed upon. There ya go... remember... the waldo is here for you!

you could imagine that... in order to attempt to cover-up your sorry-***** failures in bringing anything of substance forward. I typically have better things to do than grovel to the depths of your Grammar Policing role; however, if you pay well, I may engage and bring forward more... more... of your own gems that will solidify my earlier questioning of your credentials to lead the MLW Grammar Police and/or highlight the continued failings in your self-described, per-post, self-editing regimen. By the by, I forever wondered why most of your posts always carried an edit notice... thanks for providing the answer!
I typically don't interest myself much in other posters' grammar.

c'mon, be proud of your Grammar Police role! Hey, when you, Moonbox, have no argument, when you, Moonbox, continually stumble, when you, Moonbox, repeatedly and glaringly have your comprehension and understanding failings pointed out to you... go with your perceived grammar policing strength! :lol:

PIK · October 1, 2012

So waldo can you explain this to me, we all want to understand what is going on, but with all the BS flying around it is very hard.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Antartica-ice-global-warming/2012/09/30/id/458115?s=al&promo_code=1035A-1

waldo · October 1, 2012

So waldo can you explain this to me, we all want to understand what is going on, but with all the BS flying around it is very hard.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Antartica-ice-global-warming/2012/09/30/id/458115?s=al&promo_code=1035A-1

sea ice and ice sheet conditions within/affecting Antarctica have been touched upon many times over through an assortment of previous MLW threads... in this specific case being trumpeted throughout the denialsphere, the Shady one beat you to the punch earlier in this thread:

I guess what you didn't know is that the Antarctic Sea Ice regularly melts, every year, almost completely (summer to winter). But yes, there is an increase in the winter-time Antarctic Sea Ice, a small rate increase, one with substantial natural year-to-year variability. More pointedly, per the NSIDC (National Snow Ice Data Center), "

the increase is attributed to a changing climate pattern, one associated with a gradual increase in the westerly circumpolar winds; a condition

associated with the loss of ozone and increases in greenhouse gases

."

NSIDC (National Snow Ice Data Center)

- Is Antarctic sea ice important, too? Is it shrinking?

Scientists monitor both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, but Arctic sea ice is more significant to understanding global climate because much more Arctic ice remains through the summer months, reflecting sunlight and cooling the planet.

Sea ice near the Antarctic Peninsula, south of the tip of South America, has recently experienced a significant decline. The rest of Antarctica has experienced a small increase in Antarctic sea ice.

Antarctica and the Arctic are reacting differently to climate change partly because of geographical differences. Antarctica is a continent surrounded by water, while the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land. Wind and ocean currents around Antarctica isolate the continent from global weather patterns, keeping it cold. In contrast, the Arctic Ocean is intimately linked with the climate systems around it, making it more sensitive to changes in climate.

PIK · October 1, 2012

sea ice and ice sheet conditions within/affecting Antarctica have been touched upon many times over through an assortment of previous MLW threads... in this specific case being trumpeted throughout the denialsphere, the Shady one beat you to the punch earlier in this thread:

You could have just said you have no idea, without going thru all that.

waldo · October 1, 2012

You could have just said you have no idea, without going thru all that.

:lol: "all that"!!! Buddy, you were presented with a response that deals specifically with the article you unknowingly think has merit. You could have just said you can't understand it, without doubling down on your avowed denialism.

GostHacked · October 1, 2012

oh... do you have something new to add to your "just plant trees" meme? Perhaps I'll just recycle a few (without the study references), hey?

You accuse me of recycling arguments, when most of your posts are recycling the arguments from 'authority'.

So, tell me exactly what would be the downfall of planting trees?

WWWTT · October 1, 2012

oh... do you have something new to add to your "just plant trees" meme? Perhaps I'll just recycle a few (without the study references), hey?

Why the anger waldo?

WWWTT

waldo · October 1, 2012

You accuse me of recycling arguments, when most of your posts are recycling the arguments from 'authority'.
So, tell me exactly what would be the downfall of planting trees?

I keep relating the same like statements to you... over and over and over, again. You simply refuse to read and/or accept anything presented to you.

waldo · October 1, 2012

Why the anger waldo?

no - do you have anything to contribute... other than your denial?

WWWTT · October 1, 2012

the denialsphere

Sounds like the denial "witch hunter" has become the hunted!

And how long have you been making up words waldo (denialsphere)?

WWWTT

GostHacked · October 1, 2012

I keep relating the same like statements to you... over and over and over, again. You simply refuse to read and/or accept anything presented to you.

Alright, so you are opposed to planting trees, I get it. Why look for expensive technological solutions when we have a natural solution that has worked for eons? I simply don't understand the push back from you with regards to planting trees.

WWWTT · October 1, 2012

So, tell me exactly what would be the downfall of planting trees?

waldo is not interested in a logical debate.

He is only interested in reiterating the same argument that humans are responsible for climate change

WWWTT

WWWTT · October 1, 2012

I simply don't understand the push back from you with regards to planting trees.

Oh no,planting trees would be like having your cake and eating it to!

And that's too easy.

There is only one problem and one solution!

The use of fossil fuels will cause climate change and hurt/kill much life on our planet.

The only solution is to stop using fossil fuels.

You are either with us,or you are against us!

WWWTT

waldo · October 1, 2012

Alright, so you are opposed to planting trees, I get it. Why look for expensive technological solutions when we have a natural solution that has worked for eons? I simply don't understand the push back from you with regards to planting trees.

did not say that. In the most recent post I did, as many times before, point out to you the distinction between growing within northern versus tropical/sub-tropical latitudes... what real 'value add' there might be. Many times over I've spoken of the UN REDD program that deals specifically with reforestation/afforestation... you know, one of those real significant gains within the iterative COP climate change meetings that the MLW denier crew so likes to shit upon. Most pointedly, I just challenged you on the same point, presented to you many times over:

And yet, even if growing trees could provide the offsetting mitigation, would there be any more of a global political will surface to that end, than that required to "simply" agree to reduced CO2 emission treaties? Would Canada, for instance, open it's borders to mass emigration brought upon by the need to shift whole populations of millions of people... in order to grow trees in land currently populated (or farmed) as a result of past deforestation - notwithstanding changing land use implications?

should I bother to, once again, repeat the same point that you have never attempted to substantiate just what resulting effect you believe could be realized... even after being repeatedly prompted/pressed to do so. Is there a problem?

waldo · October 1, 2012

waldo is not interested in a logical debate.
He is only interested in reiterating the same argument that humans are responsible for climate change

you clearly have no value add to bring forward... oh wait... perhaps you could expand on your belief that heat released from hot springs is causing global warming! :lol: It was hot springs, right? Oh... wait, sorry... you don't actually accept it's warming! Carry on.

waldo · October 1, 2012

Oh no,planting trees would be like having your cake and eating it to! And that's too easy.

c'mon, make your case... GostHacked could use your invaluable help! :lol: Of course, before you actually attempt to substantiate the value add of "tree planting" to mitigate global warming... you'll actually have to accept it's warming. Such a quandary for you, hey?

WWWTT · October 1, 2012

c'mon, make your case... GostHacked could use your invaluable help! Of course, before you actually attempt to substantiate the value add of "tree planting" to mitigate global warming... you'll actually have to accept it's warming. Such a quandary for you, hey?

You are either with us or against us,in other words.

Right?

WWWTT

TimG · October 1, 2012

You are either with us or against us,in other words.

Yep. In waldo world you can't have nuanced positions. You either completely support every policy that he wants or you are "denier". He is a modern leftist version of a fundamentalist christian.