On 10/01/2017 at 00:14, hardtack said:

No, the fact that you twist my words (which were obviously citing your comments) to suit your own agenda and avoid answering the question, says it all.

No admission on my part at all. Now try answering the question.

HT - I will spend my valuable time finding evidence the IPCC was formed as a committee with its sole goal to find what damage carbon dioxide did to the planet and no other terms of reference. But when I do will you acknowledge it is stacked in one direction?

  On 10/01/2017 at 00:54, Wrecker45 said:

HT - I will spend my valuable time finding evidence the IPCC was formed as a committee with its sole goal to find what damage carbon dioxide did to the planet and no other terms of reference. But when I do will you acknowledge it is stacked in one direction?

I suppose that depends on what you come up with (including impartial sources), doesn't it. It won't necessarily change my views on climate change.

  On 11/01/2016 at 02:05, ProDee said:

Climate change has nothing to do with the climate.  It's a new form of centrist socialism.

At the UN's Agenda 2030 there's a list of “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs).  Goal number 10 calls on the UN, national governments, and every person on Earth to “reduce inequality within and among countries.” To do that, the agreement continues, will “only be possible if wealth is shared and income inequality is addressed.” 

Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, warns that the fight against climate change is a process and that the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement.  “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history“, Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels: “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution". 

 

And you think it's about the climate ?  The planet heating would be more beneficial than cooling.  CO2 levels are not dangerous.  The planet is not warming "dangerously".  This is about wealth distribution.

I have not read the UN's agenda 2030 but understand the point behind what you have highlighted. Just for context, I sit somewhere in the middle on this, the climate is changing and is getting hotter, that is fact and claiming 18 years as a reference point is laughable. Humans are having some affect on the climate be it through emissions or clearing of forest, or a mixture of both, who really knows. I am unsure of how much of an affect we are having and really laugh at people who think we can control the climate and make it just right for us, all we can do is limit of affect on a natural process and go along for the ride. I am all for taking action purely because it will actually clean up our air and have lasting benefits for the health of the worlds population.

On the wealth redistribution issues. The carbon tax as introduced by our Julia was a wealth redistribution tax, if you removed all the carbon talk around it and looked at who was paying it was basically a funnel for money to go from the top earners to the bottom earners on basically a means tested basis. That is what it did and that also meets the long held views around wealth redistribution of the then treasurer Swanny. Of that policy I was no fan.

In terms of what is written above (at least the bits about the economic development model) it is a bit of a chicken and egg discussion. As it stand the economic development model is based on poor countries building capacity through providing cheap power and building industry and wealth form there. Currently cheap power is coal, coal is dirty and highly polluting (just look at the cancer rates in the Latrobe Valley to see the impact). Under the current economic development model there is no way for poor nations to provide power in any way without going down the dirty polluting route. What the above is talking about is changing this model to allow the poor countries to provide the power required to develop their nations while using clean power, which at the minute is more expensive but given another decade or two of development may well end up the cheap option. That is the changes the are talking about, allowing the poor countries to develop without being required to follow the same polluting route we have walked and to do this they will need the help of the rich nations, which is only fair considering we have had all the benefit of polluting everything and are now asking them not to make use of that same technology. 

One thing that has puzzled me in articles from the likes of McCrann and Bolt is there talk around Coal being this panacea that can never be bettered. Human kind have always strived for new and better ways of doing things, why is coal seen as some sort of end point when there are better cleaner options that can be developed that will have all sorts of impact on society, not just the weather. Do we really want to accept the status quo and just accept that this is as good and things can be?

Drain the swamp.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4XqjDhls3

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

  On 05/02/2017 at 23:35, Wrecker45 said:

Drain the swamp.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz4XqjDhls3

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

This is extremely disturbing.

In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’

 

This is not how science is supposed to work.

As someone who's defended action on climate change in the past, thanks for posting.

This is the only article I can find on Dr Bates and this issue (others are simply repeating this one and linking back).

I've never heard of the Daily Mail though, and it seems to be an exclusive story. Are they reliable?

  On 05/02/2017 at 23:45, Choke said:

This is extremely disturbing.

In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’

 

This is not how science is supposed to work.

As someone who's defended action on climate change in the past, thanks for posting.

This is the only article I can find on Dr Bates and this issue (others are simply repeating this one and linking back).

I've never heard of the Daily Mail though, and it seems to be an exclusive story. Are they reliable?

He prefers to go by Master, not Dr. 

And no, Daily Mail is a rubbish website, it's the electronic version of women's weekly. Tabloid trash.

Edited February 6, 20178 yr by Ethan Tremblay

  On 06/02/2017 at 00:06, Ethan Tremblay said:

He prefers to go my Master, not Dr. 

And no, Daily Mail is a rubbish website, it's the electronic version of women's weekly. Tabloid trash.

Ah.

So the fact that this guy chose the Daily Mail to reveal his exclusive story should bring doubts to its authenticity?

  On 05/02/2017 at 23:45, Choke said:

This is not how science is supposed to work.

As someone who's defended action on climate change in the past, thanks for posting.

This is the only article I can find on Dr Bates and this issue (others are simply repeating this one and linking back).

I've never heard of the Daily Mail though, and it seems to be an exclusive story. Are they reliable?

The Daily Mail is not what would be considered an entirely credible publication in the UK, sitting at roughly the same level as The Sun (if it still exists); I think ET gets it right, above.  Just as this brings Thomas Karl into question, the veracity of Dr Bates claims and whether someone is in his pocket, could equally be brought into question.

Let's take the Daily Mail out of this. This is written by Dr Bates himself

https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/#more-22794

 

 

  On 06/02/2017 at 00:28, Choke said:

Ah.

So the fact that this guy chose the Daily Mail to reveal his exclusive story should bring doubts to its authenticity?

He sent it to the Washington Post as well but they chose not to run with it.

  On 06/02/2017 at 02:12, Wrecker45 said:

Let's take the Daily Mail out of this. This is written by Dr Bates himself

https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/#more-22794

 

 

Thanks for that, too much to read on my lunch break but I'll get to it

Follow up article from The Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html#ixzz4YaKwBBWV

 

  On 13/02/2017 at 23:34, Wrecker45 said:

Follow up article from The Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html#ixzz4YaKwBBWV

 

A couple of things interest me about that article. Firstly, why is it seemingly only Dr Bates who has come out on this issue? Surely once his "revelations" were brought to light, other scientists would be jumping in to support what he is saying...but there is no mention of any others at all (only a possible congressional investigation).  The other thing is the last line of the article which seems to be acknowledging that climate change is indeed real...otherwise, why describe getting it right as critical to our future?

  On 10/01/2017 at 00:10, hardtack said:

As I said in a response to you a long time ago "Oh yes, those facts that the rest of the world has chosen to ignore in order to commit to an outcome at the Paris talks."  

Now where is your irrefutable (note that word) proof that the committees have been stacked? In the meantime keep up your support for "ostrich politics" and your hip pocket.

Bye bye Paris Agreement.

Trump is bringing the climate change gravy train to a screaching halt.

  On 02/06/2017 at 02:57, Wrecker45 said:

Bye bye Paris Agreement.

Trump is bringing the climate change gravy train to a screaching halt.

Yep, sure is: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/01/europe/eu-us-climate/index.html
 

  On 02/06/2017 at 03:00, hardtack said:

Yep, sure is: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/01/europe/eu-us-climate/index.html
 

China has agreed to push forward in not cutting its carbon emissions until beyond 2030?

  On 02/06/2017 at 03:03, Wrecker45 said:

China has agreed to push forward in not cutting its carbon emissions until beyond 2030?

Easy to mislead with a simple sentence.  Try this:

A few hours ago it was reported that: "Beijing and Brussels have been preparing to announce their intention to accelerate joint efforts to reduce global carbon emissions. According to a statement being prepared
before an EU-China summit in Brussels on Thursday and Friday, the new alliance will say they are determined to “lead the energy transition” toward a low-carbon economy."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/31/china-eu-climate-lead-paris-agreement

Or this from the original agreement:

"Based on analysis by some of the world’s leading energy institutes, China’s INDC represents a significant undertaking beyond business-as-usual and will help slow the rise in global greenhouse gas emissions.
 According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), International Energy Agency (IEA), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Tsinghua University, peaking carbon dioxide emissions around
 2030 would reduce China’s emissions by at least 1.7 Gt or 14 percent from the most optimistic business-as-usual (BAU) scenario"

https://www.c2es.org/docUploads/chinas-contributions-paris-climate-agreement.pdf

  On 02/06/2017 at 03:12, hardtack said:

Easy to mislead with a simple sentence.  Try this:

A few hours ago it was reported that: "Beijing and Brussels have been preparing to announce their intention to accelerate joint efforts to reduce global carbon emissions. According to a statement being prepared
before an EU-China summit in Brussels on Thursday and Friday, the new alliance will say they are determined to “lead the energy transition” toward a low-carbon economy."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/31/china-eu-climate-lead-paris-agreement

Or this from the original agreement:

"Based on analysis by some of the world’s leading energy institutes, China’s INDC represents a significant undertaking beyond business-as-usual and will help slow the rise in global greenhouse gas emissions.
 According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), International Energy Agency (IEA), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Tsinghua University, peaking carbon dioxide emissions around
 2030 would reduce China’s emissions by at least 1.7 Gt or 14 percent from the most optimistic business-as-usual (BAU) scenario"

https://www.c2es.org/docUploads/chinas-contributions-paris-climate-agreement.pdf

Sounds like a hole lot of spin and and hoo ha to me. But maybe China will commit to reducing their carbon emissions stymie their economic growth and make America Great Again.

  On 02/06/2017 at 03:23, Wrecker45 said:

Sounds like a hole lot of spin and and hoo ha to me. But maybe China will commit to reducing their carbon emissions stymie their economic growth and make America Great Grate Again.

Corrected

  On 02/06/2017 at 02:57, Wrecker45 said:

Bye bye Paris Agreement.

Trump is bringing the climate change gravy train to a screaching halt.

Hey Wrecker why don't you go for a swim up on the once Great Barrier Reef north of Cairns and have a good look at the devastation. Climate Change is happening now, it is not something that may happen according a model after 2030 that you believe has been concocted by a conspiracy of climate scientists. The climate gravy train (worth a few hundred million) versus the trillion dollar vested interests of the fossil fuel industries, who would a logical thinking person back? Well we know it is not you, too busy obsessing over some IPCC conspiracy to look at what is happening in front of your face. 

  On 02/06/2017 at 11:28, Earl Hood said:

Hey Wrecker why don't you go for a swim up on the once Great Barrier Reef north of Cairns and have a good look at the devastation. Climate Change is happening now, it is not something that may happen according a model after 2030 that you believe has been concocted by a conspiracy of climate scientists. The climate gravy train (worth a few hundred million) versus the trillion dollar vested interests of the fossil fuel industries, who would a logical thinking person back? Well we know it is not you, too busy obsessing over some IPCC conspiracy to look at what is happening in front of your face. 

There are other views:

https://climatism.wordpress.com/tag/coral-bleaching/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/20/delingpole-great-barrier-reef-still-not-dying-whatever-washington-post-says/

All you will do is try to discredit disbelievers, such as those who contribute to the alternative views linked above.

The only certainty is that you are an alarmist who will go to your grave believing the world is warming at an alarming rate and you'll dismiss anything to the contrary.

The joke is on you.  The planet is fine and it's not warming at an alarming rate.  Climate has always changed and always will.  Some warming might be good.

And the GBR will be fine in 5 years, 10 and 20.  Be sure to bump this post. 

Stop bowing down to this new God you worship.

  On 02/06/2017 at 11:28, Earl Hood said:

Hey Wrecker why don't you go for a swim up on the once Great Barrier Reef north of Cairns and have a good look at the devastation. Climate Change is happening now, it is not something that may happen according a model after 2030 that you believe has been concocted by a conspiracy of climate scientists. The climate gravy train (worth a few hundred million) versus the trillion dollar vested interests of the fossil fuel industries, who would a logical thinking person back? Well we know it is not you, too busy obsessing over some IPCC conspiracy to look at what is happening in front of your face. 

Hey EH i have been for a swim recently on the great barrier reef and it was magnificent.

On August 3, 1971 The Sydney Morning Herald predicited the great barrier reef would be dead in 6 months. It wasn't and any crazy prediction you believe now is likely to be on par with that for accuracy.

 

  On 03/06/2017 at 04:49, Wrecker45 said:

Hey EH i have been for a swim recently on the great barrier reef and it was magnificent.

On August 3, 1971 The Sydney Morning Herald predicited the great barrier reef would be dead in 6 months. It wasn't and any crazy prediction you believe now is likely to be on par with that for accuracy.

 

Seen any bush fires lately? 2009. Worst in recorded history. Scared the crap out of me. Killed heaps of people I knew. Global warming? I suppose the creepy Andrew Blot would just smirk and say: "Prove it."

Edited June 3, 20177 yr by Jara

  On 03/06/2017 at 08:59, Jara said:

Seen any bush fires lately? 2009. Worst in recorded history. Scared the crap out of me. Killed heaps of people I knew. Global warming? I suppose the creepy Andrew Blot would just smirk and say: "Prove it."

Sorry the 2009 bushfire killed people you know.

If you want to believe it was global warming that caused the fire thats fine.

Logic says otherwise. Problem is you can't logic with someone who holds an opinion that wasn't formed with logic in the first place.

 

 

Where's the lack of logic? I didn't say that there was definite, irrefutable evidence that that particular event was caused by global warming. I said it was my belief; that belief is based upon many years of a) being a firefighter, and b) researching and writing about fire and its role in the Australian environment. Climate scientists predict that the number of "blow-up days" will increase dramatically, depending upon where you are (further inland worse - e.g. Canberra predicted to double by 2050).  

 

The climate is definitely warming, and we are breaking all sorts of records. Black Saturday, for example, a result of the worst drought in recorded history. The fire itself broke records: for example, spotting at a distance of 35 kilometres. Another example: I was at a shocking fire in Lancefield a year or two ago - the experts told us it wouldn't be bad, because it was early October. When we got there it was terrible. Sydney fires a few years ago: same thing. Abbott assured us that it was "all part of our natural cycle". Er - not in early October, it's not. 

 

These things are happening now, but because of the boiling-frog effect, we don't notice. As Bolt etc say, you can't "prove" that any particular event was due to global warming. Could just be a coincidence. Hell of a coincidence: worst fire coming at the end of the worst drought at the end of the hottest decade for thousands of years.