THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Max, Reur 6653, sorry, but my 6651 was over-rushed, and I modify item 4) and add item 5) for clarification:
This loss of albedo thingy in the Arctic, as a consequence of sea-ice melt is in my view GROSSLY OVER-HYPED, because other things come into play!
1) When the sun is in low zenith relative to the sea surface, there is very much reduced absorption of the insolation, because the photons of sunlight “ricochet“ off the surface like as to a sharply inclined mirror! (or consider a view of a sunset over the sea or a large lake in warmer climes and see the exquisitely clear evidence of low solar zenith reflection into your eyes)
2) Somewhere I have seen (from a respected university) that the albedo of old snow is about the same as water in high latitudes, per 1)
3) Water is a poor absorber of solar insolation near the surface, because it is rather transparent to daylight spectra (colour temperature of ~8000 C). However, it is “black” in infra-red colour temperatures, and IT IS THUS a strong “black body” EMITTER at those long wavelengths at the surface. (in the IR)…
4) Furthermore, the Earth’s surface water emits long-wave EMR 24/7/356, which results in CONTINUOUS HEAT LOSS, that is much greater than the heat loss from snow or ice,
which by virtue of its albedo is a very poor emitter of EMR!because water is warmer than the snow/ice, losing HEAT at a rate proportional to the fourth power of T. (whilst both are good long-wave emitters at arctic temperatures)5) The greater heat loss rate from water (T1^4 – T2^4) is continuous, whereas the non-reflected solar insolation consideration that it offsets, is only part-time.
Robin,
I think I have asked the question before but never had an answer. Who actually first used the phrase “the science is settled”? I always hear it from climate contrarians. I suspect it was first coined by someone who disagrees with the science anyway.
A better expression would be that the science is ‘clear and compelling’.
BTW. Has anyone thought of anything else that Wike have got wrong or is the gripe just about AGW?
Robin,
I wouldn’t disagree at all on the research on particulate pollution. I’d like to see much more research done on this.
I remember reading some time ago that there were more Icelandic players in the main London soccer teams than there were from London itself, even though the population of Iceland is only about 7% of that of London. If what the report says about the impairment of the health of London children is true then we shouldn’t be at all surprised that, by and large, they aren’t healthy enough to run around a soccer pitch for 90 minutues. I would expect that the situation would not be much different in all of the world’s major cities.
A move towards a clean environment: electric cars, no smoke pollution, no exhaust fumes from IC engines would have enormous benefits to city residents worldwide.
Hmm, your #6677 is interesting, Peter: a little bit of wriggling eh? So you’ve changed your mind and think the science is “clear and compelling” but not “settled”? Well, perhaps you’re making progress. As recently as 29th May (# 6463) you said, “the scientific message, the settled one, is that we are all in the shit over the question of CO2 emissions and the build up of CO2 concentrations”. My guess is that you compared that with the Royal Society’s vague “possible consequences” and “could have” and decided to back off a little. Well, well.
Now may also be the time to admit that you are unable to refer me to the research I have repeatedly requested (most recently at #6673). Then we’ll really be getting somewhere – and you can take your (much deserved) break.
Hi Peter,
It appears that you are unable to answer my three questions.
In actual fact, I personally believe that you are able to answer them, but unwilling to do so, since the answer would present a serious challenge to your ingrained belief that AGW is a serious threat.
All the melting Arctic sea ice, etc. is no evidence that man-made CO2 is causing whatever warming we have experienced over the 20th century. You have neither been able to show scientific evidence that this is so, nor that this represents a potential future threat.
All of the various formulas proposed to quantify the potential theoretical greenhouse warming from a doubling of CO2 (from the assumed “pre-industrial” level of 280 ppmv to the projected level of 560 ppmv in the year 2100) agree that this warming would be around 1°C. We have theoretically already seen 45% of this to date, so this leaves an insignificant amount of future warming, and nothing to worry about.
The only way to make the future warming appear to be potentially dangerous is to inflate the theoretical greenhouse warming by introducing the concept of “positive feedbacks” to the tiny amount of greenhouse warming theoretically caused by the doubling of CO2 from around 1°C to 3.2°C.
These “positive feedbacks” are figments of the imagination of computer models, which have conveniently been fed with the necessary assumptions to make the feedbacks appear to be strongly positive.
You have been unable to provide any actual physical observations that confirm these strongly positive feedbacks.
I have cited studies and sources of long-term data that demonstrate that the net feedback on clouds is strongly negative, rather than positive, as assumed by all the climate models.
In addition, I have cited a study that shows that the IPCC assumption on water vapor is grossly exaggerated as well as long-term records, which show that water vapor actually decreased over the past 60 years with rising temperature, rather than increasing as assumed by IPCC models to maintain constant relative humidity.
Then I have shown you that the actually observed warming since 1850 does not support the premise of a 2xCO2 impact of 3.2°C, but rather that of around 1°C.
What has been your response to all this?
Denial (and waffling around the subject with silly statements that have nothing to do with the topic here).
Peter, unless you step up and take a stand on the inconsistencies I have pointed out or bring concrete evidence that the assumed positive feedbacks leading to a 3+ fold increase in the theoretical 2xCO2 greenhouse warming are founded on actual physical observations, you have been unable to defend your premise that AGW is a serious problem, and we can discard this premise as unfounded.
The ball is in your court, Peter, and time is running out for you.
Regards,
Max
Just back from holiday and I’m probably way behind the times with this. On the other hand, if it’s new to you, then this clip goes a long way towards explaining why Al Gore is reluctant to debate on global warming publicly:
Max, In your various tolerant-patient exchanges with Peter Martin concerning climate modelling and the poor understanding in AR4 (IPCC 2007), of the forcings of water vapour and clouds, they being crucially assumed (guessed) inputs to the models, I would like to expand on a few points, hopefully to assist some rational thinking for anyone interested in the science!
a) Do we know if the assumed inputs to the models are treated as linearly averaged for the Globe, or are there some integrations or distributions of more complex functions, and if so, what, why, and where are they available for review?
(like, for example, how do you sensibly average global heat loss when it is proportional to the fourth power of T?)
b) Whilst it seems possible to define water vapour concentration feedback, OR, separately, cloud cover feedbacks (of a variety of cloud species) in a chosen climate zone, with a few limitations/caveats, I believe that a definite inter-relationship between the two is set-aside, simply because it is currently far too hard to handle them jointly! (however the isolated data is still useful)
c) To expand on b), for example, if water vapour concentration were to increase, (assumed positive warming), would it be unreasonable to conjecture that cloud cover would consequently also increase with opposite effect? (negative)
d) In absolute terms, (in degrees K), I personally marvel at how little variation there has been in global T’s over a long period of time. This observation should not be confused with human/Earth biology responses to a tiny absolute T change! (and neither should we humans assume that WE can control the climate!….even in such miniscule terms.
Thus, I see in c), just part of the amazing “climate thermostat” that we have here on Earth, that has supported aeons of species evolutions, of which we have a very recent self-interest.
e) However, in addition to the “too hard” consideration in b), there is also the poorly understood matter of evaporative cooling from some 71% of the Earth’s water surface, and a bit more from the land surface after rain etc, and biological transpiration. The IPCC puts the dart-board global average value at ~46% of the heat lost from the Earth’s surface. (that’s almost half, in 2001 & 2007.… graphic & more detail @ my 6556/p44).
f) So, if the globe warms as a consequence of some forcing, be it orbital, or CO2, or whatever, would this not result in increased evaporative cooling in an already large alleged 46% base? This seems to me to be a very important negative feedback, but I’m unaware of any research on it. (BTW; that is arguably because it would be excruciatingly complicated)
g) In b) I suggest that it is currently too hard to work-out the counter-balancing interdependency of water vapour and various cloud species. But, what is more; the evaporative cooling “dartboard figure” from the IPCC (46%), further compounds this interdependency in poor understanding by about an order of magnitude!
h) But: Oh no! It does not end there! There is another significant HEAT loss from the Earth’s surface, according to the IPCC (2001 & 2007), from thermals. (thermals = convection and conduction).
Oh well, who cares about a dartboard figure of only ~14% of the HEAT loss from the Earth’s surface?
Well true, but if you add it to evapo-transpiration, we get the healthy sum, (according to Trenberth/IPCC of ~61% HEAT loss from the surface? (Repeat; 61%)
But; Is it not true that AGW alarmists attribute increased thermals, and their advection cousins to AGW? Thus, if we are to believe the alarmists, the mind-boggling threefold compounding effect in g) above is herewith compounded to a fourth level of mystery.
There is more, but enough for now!
Peter/ Max/ All
“The science is settled”
I originally traced this phrase back several years ago to Al Gore (coincidentally just before he set up his carbon trading firm)who paraphrased someone who said the science wasn’t settled.
However wiki does not reflect this. Follow the links to see the evolving story of managed manipulation by the gatekeeper;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley/The_science_is_settled
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_science_is_settled
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley/For_me
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Co
nnolley/Whats-wrong-with-wikipedia
Statement from Connolley
“Wiki isn’t brilliant at removing junk science from articles. Most of the climate stuff is fairly clean because I watch it. But here are some examples from elsewhere”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute
Please limit your statement to 500 words
“User William M. Connolley (WMC) strongly pushes his POV with systematic removal of any POV which does not match his own. His primary tactic for doing this is to use aggressive revert warring with no regard for discussion to establish consensus. This behavior has degraded a large number of articles into a battle of attentiveness, where the state of the article is determined entirely by who is around their computer to revert the articles most frequently, with no apparent aim of convergence around NPOV. William M. Connolley refuses to form consensus, accept compromise, or allow multiple perspectives to exist on controversial topics. His views on climate science are singular and narrow, which would not be at all a problem if he did not make it his ideal goal for Wikipedia to singularly represent his own view at whatever cost. Compromise is nearly impossible, because at best he treats compromise [1] as a delay until he can revert everything back to how he wants it again [2] [3]. The behaviors he has engaged in have resulted in the loss [4] to Wikipedia of a large number of good editors in the climate area, who left after finding his domination of those areas extremely difficult (or worse) to deal with.
If you want to set a standard of behavior for Wikipedia as a place where editorial consensus can be reached through mutual cooperation, then I ask you to take some sort of action now, because the climate related articles on Wikipedia are not in that state. I and many other editors interested in the topics, have better things to do with our time than sit around trying to revert pages to make sure our contributions aren’t all systematically removed. The only cure for this is cooperative consensus, and we don’t have it because WMC refuses to participate. Edit warring on every edit is not a solution, and I ask you to put a stop to it. — Cortonin | Talk 01:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by William M. Connolley
I am a climate modeller and I know a lot about climate change and related issues. I have made contributions to almost all of the pages on glossary of climate change (which I created) many of which are non-controversial. I have happily collaborated with a number of other editors, as the discussion on global warming will make clear. I do not push my POV: I attempt to keep the pages roughly representing the scientific consensus, which is by and large represented by the IPCC reports. You will find a large number of statements in my support on the earlier RFC. I have also made contributions to a number of other areas of wiki, including two featured pictures (here) and many other pics. I frequently “patrol” the climate change pages, reverting vandalism, as well as watching for all-too-frequent POV insertions by skeptics, of which the current worst example is Cortonin. We have had a number of troublesome folk in the past: JonGwynne is the obvious one (eventually I needed to take up an RFA against him, and he left, thankfully – presumably he is one of the “good” editors whose loss C regrets). Ben was a regrettable example, but by his contributions I wouldn’t call him “good” but misguided – well, see the RFC against me for details. I have been a large part of removing some POV-pushers (Ben wasn’t one) from the climate pages, but this is good not bad.
By contrast, Cortonin appears to know almost nothing about global warming, yet edits there and a small number of related controversial pages almost exclusively (he occaisionally makes vague claims of physics competence, but never edits physics pages where he might make use of his knowledge). The global warming page is a good example. The current page is fairly stable, and a fair group of editors seem happy with it. It is this version onto which Cortonin put an NPOV tag, with the comment This page is in NPOV dispute until it contains description of solar variation theories and climate model criticisms.. This is his idea of consensus: to use the NPOV tag as a bludgeon to get his way, when the normal editing process removes his unwelcome additions. These additions were [5]. In particular he insisted on:
Some solar effects may be very important and are not currently accounted for by temperature-prediction climate models, such as the feedbacks due to direct changes to water vapor caused by solar variation (Sonnemann and Grygalashvyly, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 2005)
and
There are areas in which current climate models due a significantly poor job of predicting feedback due to solar forcing of clouds and the greenhouse effect of clouds. In 2003, CCM3 was found to differ from observation by 10.5 W/m2 in the pacific cold tongue region due to an underestimate of the negative feedback due to solar forcing of clouds, and an overestimate of the positive feedback due to the greenhouse effect of clouds. (Sun et. al., Journal of Climate, 2003)
The problem with his first addition is that the reference concerned is about mesospheric water vapour: this has precious little relevance to climate change (the mesosphere being very high up and possessing little mass); we live in the troposphere. Cortonin either doesn’t know this, or doesn’t understand it.
The problem with the second (apart from it probably being excess detail in a section that is intended as an intro to the main article on climate models) is that its a very biased quote. The full abstract is [6]. Note that Cortonin has omitted The results show that the positive feedback from the greenhouse effect of water vapor in the model largely agrees with that from observations.. I pointed out to C that this was biased [7] and he appeared to be unable to understand this [8] – there is more in that section.
Greenhouse effect (dispute now moved over to Solar greenhouse (technical)) is another example of Cortonin pushing his ignorance. Despite this, we had a long stable compromise (this version [9] which Cortonin upset on Mar 15; I reverted with Rv: don’t upset the delicate balance, but C wouldn’t leave it, so the war began again). As to the content: I’ve provided any number of refs to the meteorological literature (all of which C dismisses, with comments like Let’s compare this to the opposing quote, “heating in the usual greenhouse is due to the reduction of convection” from Jose Peixoto. No well-educated physicist would write this, so I can only assume his background is something else. I cannot find much reference to him on the web outside of that book. I do see a Jose Peixoto whose background is literature who is considered to be a good writer, but I cannot tell if this is the same one. [10]).
Another example, over at Greenhouse gas, around Jan 15th you’ll find Cortonin several times adding junk numbers for the total GHE of water vapour, e.g. [11]. It needed someone (me) who knew the subject to realise that these numbers were junk (95% is implausible; the current page is stable with 60-70%).
In short, Cortonins POV is so badly biased that anyone editing a straight line is regarded by him as POV pushing. Despite knowing very little of the subject, he edits vigourously and will not accept contrary information.”
There is very much more if anyone wants to follow the numerous examples of Connolley editing to match a strongly held view and the subsequent complaints from other editors. The climate pages are clearly fashioned in Connoleys image and it is obvious what his views are.
Tonyb
Who actually first used the phrase “the science is settled”?
Al Gore, I believe, although one could reasonably ask how he (a lawyer) would know!
On consensus, Michael Crichton seems to have been on the money in his speech to the National Press Club in 2005:
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
And furthermore, the consensus of scientists has frequently been wrong. As they were wrong when they believed, earlier in my lifetime, that the continents did not move. So we must remember the immortal words of Mark Twain, who said, ‘Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.'”
The rest of it is here:
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html
This is from an NPR report on Al Gore’s speech to Congress in March 2007:
Tony B,
Thank you for your gob-smacking exposes of the Wiki’ gatekeeper stuff WRT the “editing” of AGW topics.
Max and I, and likely some others, have severally commented that any Wiki’ entry on emotive subjects such as AGW, need to be treated with great caution. However, I did not realize how rampant it was.
We rationalists have also mentioned variously that non emotive subjects may be described very well, a recent example being Max’s quote of certain formulae. This did not stop Peter Martin from foolishly attempting to ridicule Max for quoting this non-emotive source!!!!!!
Sheez!!!!
Peter: it seems you’ve got an ally in my household. I’ve been reading Svensmark’s (interesting) book The Chilling Stars. Unfortunately, my spaniel Sam got hold of it and has eaten the cover and several of the early pages. I tried to reason with him but he’s not having it – for him at least the science is settled (in his stomach).
Hi Bob_FJ
Your latest post #6682 raises many questions regarding the real impact (if any) to be expected from AGW.
However, I believe that it is an order-of-magnitude too complicated for Peter to discuss seriously.
He is already having a hard enough time with fairly simple and straightforward questions regarding the basic inconsistencies between physically observed / reported data and IPCC model input assumptions.
These inconsistencies represent the difference between a relatively insignificant warming to be theoretically expected over the next century to a level of warming that is over three times this large (and inflated to double this exaggerated value as an “upper limit”), so it is truly the difference between an AGW that could theoretically pose a potentially serious threat to one that is meaningless.
And it is precisely for this reason that Peter denies the physically observed facts, because they represent a direct threat to his ingrained belief in the premise that AGW is a serious threat.
Regards,
Max
To All
A Swiss weekly magazine just carried a one-page article entitled “Unholy Alliance”, based on an article by Bjørn Lomborg in the WSJ.
The Climate-Industrial Complex
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286145192740987.html
The Swiss review of this article (Weltwoche Nr 22.09) warns of the unholy alliance of profit-hungry corporations, sensationalist politicians and scare-mongering scientists, whom Lomborg called the “climate-industrial complex” (referring to the term “military-industrial complex” coined by President Eisenhower in the Cold War 1950s).
The goal of this alliance is to levy draconian taxes on the public so that they can make huge profit at the expense of the taxpayers. It singles out Al Gore, the keynote speaker at the recent climate conference in Copenhagen, as one who hopes to make large profits from his own “green” investments, if a carbon cap and trade tax can be implemented, quoting him: “We must act now. Time is running out.”
An English-language review of Lomborg’s article can be seen here.
The Business of Going Green
http://pra-blog.blogspot.com/2009_05_17_archive.html
Scary stuff!
But it was always obvious to me that you need to “follow the money trail” to see what is really behind all the AGW hype.
Max
Robin:
Peter might just think that your evidence is a dog’s dinner?
JamesP
In your 6684 you state that Al Gore, as a lawyer, should have little to say whether or not “the science is settled” on AGW.
I agree with your comment but am surprised that I did not hear a howl of outrage from Robin.
Al Gore has a BA degree in “Government” (sometimes known as “political science”.
He did later attend law school for two years, but did not complete this study with a law degree.
So he is not a lawyer, just a politician.
Which reminds me of a (US) joke:
The two most despised professions in the USA are politicians and lawyers (sorry about that, Robin and no offense intended; I know that barristers, as opposed to politicians, enjoy a high reputation in the UK).
Yet judges ,who in the USA are often both lawyers and elected politicians, are highly revered.
Is this the “two negatives make a positive” rule at work?
Anyway, Al Gore is just a politician and not a lawyer.
Max
Robin
Further to TonyH’s comment, it is evident that your spaniel, Sam, has good taste.
I’m sure he would only have p___d on a copy of the 1,000+ page IPCC report.
Regards,
Max
Robin, I suspect that in Max’s 6692, because he may have been searching for the best word, not in his mother tongue, he may have been over-cautious, or more politically correct.
I think that the most appropriate past participle that I believe he might have initially framed in his Swiss-German tongue, when translated into English is most likely to have been the most popular pp of:
Shat.
Max 6689
I posted this some months ago which drew little reaction here-Surprisingly even Peter seemed unperturbed at the notion that an undemocratic body was shaping our future.
Lomborg is citing the same collusion of interests (plus inudstry) as I did-although I put a greater emphasis on the UN’s part in all this.
Sorry for repeating it but the material is relevant bearing in mind Lomborgs article-I personally respect his realistic viewpoints.
I have only posted the first third. If anyone is interested I will repeat the rest unless anyone can tell me the number this was originally posted at here.
The item below was put together as events unfolded as I researched them so the narrative is not as clear as I would like but think you will get the overall picture.
“This is a composite of my various postings on Agenda 21 and the ‘AD Hoc’ group that is behind much of the impetus for climate change legislation in the EU. Hope the narrative thread is clear. The group actually met in April-and not in June.
I followed this link through to the UN Discussion document
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/032709_informationnote.pdf
it is indeed a UN document to reorder the world
Whilst everyone should scrutinise each line in order to see what we had always believed was an agenda behind the IPCC (they couldn’t seriously believe all their models could they) some highlights are
Page 6 item 17
page 8 item 25 and 27
page 9 item 34
page 10 item 37
page 14 item 60
Conclusions on p15
This is the ad hoc working group composition and its aims, that have fed into the UN report above.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2008/awg6/eng/08.pdf
These are the key chairs
Harald Dovland Norway –chair minister for environment http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-180526631.html
Mam Konate of Mali Vice chair http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop11/enbots/enbots1704e.html
Chan Woo-Kim Republic of korea http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:py3_vPi45-wJ:www.unescap.org/esd/environment/mced/singg/documents/Programme_SINGG_Final.pdf+chan-woo+kim+republic+of+korea&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Ms Christiana Figueres Costa Rica http://figueresonline.com/
Nuno Lacasta Portugal http://www.wcl.american.edu/environment/lacasta.cfm
Brian Smith New Zealand (also a Bryan Smith-same person?
Marcelo Rocha Brazil http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file50347.pdf
Talking about carbon markets and here
http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12378e.html
Smokey at WUWT commented as follows;
After reading the relevant passages you posted, I have a few comments:
The UN climate proposals are more stringent than the changes imposed on the defeated nations following WWII, and they are aimed directly at the U.S. and the West. They are hostile, and they are based on fraudulent science as a means to an end.
Following the end of WWII the Soviets expropriated not only massive amounts of industrial equipment from Germany, but also tens of thousands of highly educated engineers and scientists, and made them slaves of the Russian state. Almost none of those individuals were ever released or repatriated. The immediate result was the detonation of the Soviet Union’s first atomic bomb, less than one year after the war ended. Russia’s first hydrogen bomb test occurred only a matter of months after the first U.S. test.
[The West, despite what is portrayed in history books, took similar actions. For example, the giant cranes and gantrys lining Long Beach harbor were dismantled in Germany at the end of the war and moved to California; taken with no compensation as the spoils of war.]
The UN now demands nothing less than the complete surrender of the West to its version of world socialism, with the UN as world dictator. The spoils of this undeclared war are in the posted documents; industry will be forcibly relocated to other countries, with no compensation. Taxes will be raised as high as necessary to enable this theft — all in the name of “combating climate change.”
It is all there in the UN documents. IMHO, simply evicting the UN from the host country is completely inadequate. The UN is the enemy. They are extremely hostile, and must be destroyed. It is quite clearly them or us.
It should be pointed out that the latest move in this concerted effort is toward a single world currency. Why? Because along with a world monetary system, there must also be a world police force to prosecute financial crimes, and a world court to adjudicate financial crimes. Note that financial “crimes” were high on the list of Soviet offenses committed by the kulaks [the Russian middle class, which was forcibly exterminated].
Climate alarmism is just part and parcel of the deliberate move toward a dictatorial world government. It is simply a means to an end, as is the demand for a world currency. And in the approaching world government, there will be zero sympathy for Western values, because those involved in the UN agenda do not possess Western values.
I desperately want to be wrong about this.
But I am not wrong. Look, and you will see it happening.”
Aron said;
“You forgot Agenda 21.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm
“Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.”
Note how they have planned to act on such a vast level without asking any population for approval. Aren’t agendas and manifestos supposed to be presented by representative politicians to a voting public instead of being crafted by faceless unelected bureaucrats who make the decisions for everyone.”
I replied
Thanks to those who have taken the time to read this. Those of us who did not believe the science always matched the reality will recognise that it is the politics that are pre-imminent and the science is a façade.
I have always been reluctant to accept the IPCC/UN had an agenda, but this document clearly describes the world order they seek to put in place through scaring everyone with tales of catastrophic climate change which gives an added dimension to H.L.Mencken who wrote:”The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
I am not a conspiracy theorist by nature-quite the opposite-as a sceptic I have found there is usually a rational explanation to most things if you look hard enough, which generally centres on money, power, prestige, politics, ignorance and idealism.
However the UN document elevates debate on AGW to a different league. The ’science’ we have always been sceptical about-doubling co2 causes a temp rise of up to 5degrees C (How!)
All sorts of unproven exotic feedbacks promoted as facts. The use of ridiculous proxies such as global temperatures to 1850, nonsense about rising sea levels, scorning history demonstrating we have been warmer than today and that polar ice has been as extensive as today.
These and many more things simply don’t add up to a compelling argument that ‘WE’ are dramatically changing the planet.
(I then carried out some more research;)
This is the claimed agenda of the UN
http://worldinbalance.net/agreements/1992-rio-agenda21.php
This is the schools agenda
http://sage-agenda21.site.voila.fr/
(click on the English button-top right.
(Many worthy aims being hijacked by climate action material)
If this is all some eleborate joke it is extremely well thought out and executed.
http://www.worldinbalance.net/agreements/2000-unglobalcompact.php
gives UN declarations covering 10 principles.
http://worldinbalance.net/agreements/gov-agreements.php
End of part 1
Tonyb
Bob 6686
Thanks for your comments. I agree that wiki is fine for non emotive things but I wouldn’t touch it for climate science items and- increasingly- other contentious issues.
Which city are you from in OZ?
Tonyb
TonyN
The documents you have posted outline nothing less than a massive power-grab by a bunch of non-elected bureaucrats. The proposed measures are, indeed, hostile to not only the USA, but also the rest of the industrially developed world.
In fact, they are also hostile to the poorest nations of the world, since they will block their industrialization and parallel growth in energy consumption, thereby condemning their populations to a continuation of abject poverty. But these guys have nothing to say, anyway, and AGW is a “rich man’s game”.
I agree with Robin that it is unlikely that China or India will agree to the proposed measures for their rapidly expanding economies, as their priorities obviously lie with improving the standard of living (and hence the average energy consumption) of their populations.
Whether the USA will pass the cap and trade tax (estimated to cost US taxpayers around $600 billion) appears doubtful. Obama is still riding on a wave of anti-Bush popularity, but there are limits to what the U.S. taxpayer will swallow and Congress appears to be divided with the average US voter very skeptical of AGW as a serious issue.
The present global economic situation does not favor aggressive global warming initiatives (even stalwarts, like Germany, are starting to waver).
Obviously, if China (the most populous nation which also is the highest CO2 emitter), India (the second-most populous nations that, like China, is also struggling to pull its population out of poverty) and the USA (the second highest CO2 emitter) all three reject cap and trade, it is a dead duck, no matter what documents the UN bureaucrats draw up.
I believe Gore was right in one thing, when he proclaimed, “Time is running out.”
I, personally believe time is running out for the AGW hysteria, as people realize that it is no longer warming and all the predictions of doom are not coming true.
But maybe I am just an optimist who believes that reason will eventually prevail.
But the documents you posted are scary “Big Brother” stuff.
Max
TonyB
Sorry for typo. The last message was meant for you instead of TonyN.
Max
Hi Bob_FJ
Well you may be right about the bodily ejection which Sam, Robin’s spaniel, might find most appropriate for the IPCC report. This dog obviously has good taste (as established earlier), and I presume (based on the reputation of his master) that he also has good judgment.
But I actually did a quick calculation. First, I assumed that Sam is a male spaniel (not a female “in the closet” actually named “Samantha”).
Then I checked the height of a 1,000-page report, assuming it is printed on average weight paper (both sides, of course, to reduce the carbon footprint): I came up with around 8 cm height (including the covers).
Then I did some checking on spaniels of various breeds: I saw that these are usually between 35 to 50 cm high (at the hindquarters), so with the hind leg raised to a 60 degree angle (to the horizontal) and the tip of the nozzle an estimated 15 to 20 cm below the top of the back, the cover of the report would be in perfect target range for a direct hit.
But, of course, this is just a rough approximation. More work (and research funding) is needed to refine the calculation.
Regards,
Max
Sorry everyone but I’m afraid that Sam (a male black and white English springer spaniel) has poor taste and terrible judgement – apart from his ability to find pheasants in unlikely places. After all, he ate a sceptical publication and, for all I know, might happily carry off the IPCC report for his bedtime reading. However, he tells me he’d be delighted to take part in further relevant research – provided he has an adequate supply of bones. His pal, Ned ( a black Labrador retriever) is unwilling to express an opinion on AGW – but he’s much younger and went to stud a couple of weeks ago so has other, more urgent priorities. Maybe he’s got it right – unlike we old fogeys.
Peter (tempterrain): it’s become clear from your comments (especially to Max) that you still don’t understand that basic tool of science, the scientific method. I’ll try to help you by referring you (again) to three contrasting examples mentioned here recently:
(1) Verification of the hypothesis that smoking is linked to lung cancer. At #5959 I summarised how researchers, no doubt who found the theory “clear and compelling” (to use your new favourite description of the dangerous AGW hypothesis), went into the real world to establish (by replicable investigation) that such a link existed. Only then did they call for action on cigarette smoking.
(2) Verification of the hypothesis that the Higgs boson exists (see #6495). Again, I expect that many particle physicists find the hypothesis (potentially a key piece in the jigsaw of particle physics) “clear and compelling” – and much of their theoretical work and models probably confirms that. But, far from leaving it at that, they have set up an incredibly expensive test using the Large Hadron Collider to determine if there is evidence that it is, or is not, a reality in the natural world.
(3) Verification of the hypothesis that “particulates” emitted by motor vehicles are dangerous, especially to children. Here researchers (no doubt finding their theoretical data “clear and compelling”) have carried out extensive real-world investigation (see the link at #6674). The results seem pretty conclusive – but, even so, they’re cautious and are treating their results as “interim”, doing yet more research to be quite sure the hypothesis is verified.
Then, Peter, there’s the hypothesis that, if mankind continues to add GHGs to the atmosphere, the consequence will be dangerous warming. Er … can you spot the difference between the way scientists are dealing with that and the way they are dealing with the three examples above?