From "The Rich World's Policy on Greenhouse Gas Now Seems Clear: Millions Will Die," by George Monbiot:
Rich nations seeking to cut climate change have this in common: they lie. You won't find this statement in the draft of the new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was leaked to the Guardian last week. But as soon as you understand the numbers, the words form before your eyes. The governments making genuine efforts to tackle global warming are using figures they know to be false.
Read the rest.
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Climate talks timeline: From 350 to Kyoto to Copenhagen and beyond
Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations
Comments
View as Flat
Delay And Deny Posted 7:08 am
01 May 2007
I don't have a lot of time to comment on this chapter in your neverending saga, because I just started reading Unstoppable Global Warming (Every 1500 Years).
Unstoppable Global Warming @ Amazon
Every chapter of book decimates the arguments of the IPCC and the AGWers.
For example, I was just reading a chapter at lunch, how in the original IPCC study -- way back in 1996 -- the results were "finagled" because they could find no evidence of mankind being responsible for the warming.
All the evidence pointed to sun cycles...entirely.
This book is a gem and I've only just read the first 15 pages.
Everyone must read the book:
UNSTOPPABLE GLOBAL WARMING - Every 1500 Years
by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery
You Read It Here First
Permalink
JMG Posted 7:47 am
01 May 2007
This is important because it is vital that reasonable people be confronted with the tenacity of the denialist mentality. Reasonable people often have a difficult time accepting that there are no depths to which these denialists will not stoop to maintain their pre-determined conclusions, especially when, as in Singer's case, it pays so well.
jabailo, thank you for bringing up the book and identifying a few of the people whom you consider authoritative sources on the subject. Very helpful in understanding your comments.
"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 8:36 am
01 May 2007
Maybe AGWers can just take their lumps instead of name calling...read on:
http://volokh.com/posts/1160656660.shtml
Godwin's Law and Global Warming:
Roger Pielke Jr. has had enough of comparisons between global warming skeptics and holocaust deniers.
Let's be blunt. The phrase "climate change denier" is meant to be evocative of the phrase "holocaust denier". As such the phrase conjurs up a symbolic allusion fully intended to equate questioning of climate change with questioning of the Holocaust.
Let's be blunt. This allusion is an affront to those who suffered and died in the Holocaust. Let those who would make such an allusion instead be absolutely explicit about their assertion of moral equivalency between Holocaust deniers and those that they criticize.
This allusion has no place in the discourse on climate change. I say this as someone fully convinced of a significant human role in the behavior of the climate system.
Let's declare a moratorium on the phrases "climate change denier" and "climate change denial." Let's invoke the equivalent of Godwin's Law in discourse on climate policy. Maybe call it the Prometheus Principle.
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 8:52 am
01 May 2007
This is a cut in total emissions, not in emissions per head. If the population were to rise from 6 billion to 9 billion between now and then, we would need an 87% cut in global emissions per person. If carbon emissions are to be distributed equally, the greater cut must be made by the biggest polluters: rich nations like us. The UK's emissions per capita would need to fall by 91%.(emphasis mine)
But our governments appear quietly to have abandoned their aim of preventing dangerous climate change. If so, they condemn millions to death. What the IPCC report shows is that we have to stop treating climate change as an urgent issue. We have to start treating it as an international emergency.
(emphasis mine)
I live in California where firefighting is a spectator sport. We foolishly build our cities among wooded areas and then fail to clear dead fuel and maintain firebreaks. In some areas you can watch a fire eat somebody's house every few years without changing your habits at all .
The fuel takes years to grow and build up. It takes minute to eat a house and hours to destroy thousands of houses.
On this planet the fuel is there and dry as a tinder. Enough to burn the whole place. Continueing to produce greenhouse gases is just like playing with matches. Once the fire starts we will not live to see a cooler planet.
If we are going to cut 90% of our emissions then we had damn well better get started NOW.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 9:16 am
01 May 2007
Let's be blunt. This allusion is an affront to those who suffered and died in the Holocaust. Let those who would make such an allusion instead be absolutely explicit about their assertion of moral equivalency between Holocaust deniers and those that they criticize.
The Holocaust was the deliberate destruction of 6 million Jews by a group seeking personal power. If we include Soviet citizens killed as a result of that war the death toll exceeds 30 millions.
If what is now happening in Australia is replicated on any global scale the death toll will be in the billions. Our technology will not save people if it fails to rain on time.
Right now the San Fransico Bay Area struggles to deal with the failure of a single critical node of it's complex infrastructure. This is an area with multiple transportation redundancies and proven experience in dealing with disasters.
If two or three nodes fail simultaneously, say the area loses power, AND hetch hetchy water AND a bridge, all bets are off.
Katrina was just a warm up for the real event.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 9:57 am
01 May 2007
I think the science is very concrete and sound, speaking about greanhouse gases and global warming. It does give me pause when I heard the Europeans were running the IPCC with over 250 scientists who can't agree on anything in the first place, and should stay the heck out of policy at all costs. So what happened was the the concensus science appears halting, hesitant, guarded, and less than perfect.
But let me say I'm glad the IPCC was cautious. Many are under the mistaken impression that science is all about seeking the Truth. Save that for your religious ceremonies, OK, nothing could be farther from the truth. There is plausibility, possible causation, correlation, collinearlity, measuring of effects, and all kinds of science, but they NEVER claim to have the truth - unless they're self-absorbed boneheads or religious nut-cases!
As a postscipt, please limit the use of the un-word "denier." All scientists are trained to be skeptical and by nature are skeptics. In fact, the first think they do is to try to prove themselves wrong. This is called testing the null hypothesis. If something turns out to be not true, then it is definitely not the Truth. If something passes the null hypothesis then it is plausible, but never, ever the Truth which some people can choose to deny. Please get it right.
/sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
zackk Posted 10:57 am
01 May 2007
frankly, if our climate does continue to change respecting the holocaust will be as relevant as respecting the dodo.
history cannot be changed. let's do our best to avoid becoming history.
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 1:06 pm
01 May 2007
Well all who believe, fall down and wail
Ever wondered why the forests are tinder dry ?
This world will burn ..... and what is the combustion product of carbon and oxygen ?
It is only the water vapour in the atmosphere that prevents spontaneous combustion.
More CO2 will be produced from mega-fires than has ever been emitted by puny humankind. Try carbon trading with trees ! LOL, (except this global warming charade is the worst joke I have ever heard)
The forests are so dry, that firefighters can not fight a fire at its source ... the drought-stressed trees just fall on them.
LOL, as if CO2 has a 'real' life threatening impact on climate ... tell me you jest or are you ...
Now an oil layer on the sea is totally invisible, unnatural (anthropogenic), and totally fatal.
omegafour.com
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 2:20 pm
01 May 2007
Oh I get it, you're a naysayer like Rush Limbaugh who offers not a shred of evidence but talks like a redneck who knows everything: "Let me explain this to the people of Rio Linda."
And you know that bad attitude isn't very helpful. We've got glaciers melting to pieces and you're saying the air is so dry it could somehow spontaneously combust, although perhaps the Hillbilly Heroin was kicking in about then.
If you want a rational debate well you've met your match. Tell us why the global warming premis isn't working to your satisfaction. Is it rainy in Bangladesh and colder in the Antarctic? That doesn't prove dookie. Keep trying until you get it right, bro.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
cce Posted 3:06 pm
01 May 2007
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:26 pm
01 May 2007
Both groups posit, for reasons known only to them, against overwhelming mountains of evidence, that they among millions know a startling truth, a truth being suppressed by a gigantic conspiracy involving tens or hundreds of thousands of outwardly reputable people who are organized to suppress the truth and replace it with a gigantic lie about what really did happen/is happening.
Pielke can save his phony affront for someone who gives a damn about what Pielke says.
What I notice about Godwin's law is that the more often that the actions and events prompt people to ask "Hmmm, where have we heard stuff like this before?" the more the people prompting those comparisons shriek about Godwin's Law.
"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."
Permalink
Werdna Posted 4:13 pm
01 May 2007
The salient point, is not the act of denial, but rather the failure to change one's mind when faced with overwhelming evidence.
Denial is not the same as skepticism. A skeptical person has an open mind and will change beliefs given sufficient evidence.
From what I've read so far, the evidence strongly favors AGW. This does not seem to affect Pielke and other deniers, who have not changed opinions as their body of evidence shrinks over time. Is it inertia? Fear? Machismo?
ps- OK, a slight change---I am a Zeus skeptic! Show me the proof and I will change my mind.
Andrew Eisenberg
The gateway project is wrong---http://www.liveableregion.ca/
Permalink
Billhook Posted 5:50 pm
01 May 2007
is how this century's very limited global budget of Greenhouse Gas emissions
is going to be allocated between the nations.
The first requisite shift in industrialized nations' stance
is to acknowledge that there won't be a lasting inequitable global agreement over GW:
the West is utterly dependent on developing countries' co-operation on this issue,
and co-operation cannot be commandeered.
The second is to acknowledge that for a treaty to be negotiable,
national shares in the emissions budget must Converge
from the current GDP-based fractions at the outset to the equity of per capita parity
over an agreed number of years.
The third is to acknowledge that the annual global emissions budget must Contract,
to a point and at a rate advised by science as reliably avoiding more than 2.0 degrees C of Global Warming.
The fourth is to acknowledge that to maximize the economically endurable rate of change out of global fossil fuel dependence,
a capped trade in emissions entitlements must be established between nations
as a means to fund massive sustainable energy development in poor countries.
The above global climate policy framework is known as Contraction & Convergence (C&C)
and has been widely endorsed since its launch at the UN in `92,
including by the Africa Group of Nations at the UNFCCC and by the democratic vote of the European Parliament.
Those who would like to help advance the day of its adoption and the negotiation of a "Treaty of the Atmospheric Commons"
can find more information at http://www.gci.org
In this context, George Monbiot's fine article above details the extent
to which the "Great Powers" are willing to play brinkmanship over the GW issue
at the predictable cost of many millions of lives.
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
Billhook Posted 5:53 pm
01 May 2007
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 7:30 pm
01 May 2007
LOL
I am the only one who has supplied real evidence.
Best read my site or at the least, read all the posts I have made here.
Global climate change is caused by an oil film on the sea waters of the world. It is producing Global Drought.
When the water vapour content of the atmosphere is sufficiently reduced, spontaneous combustion of plant matter can occur. Best be careful with matches.
Book "The Death of Clouds"
omegafour.com
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:48 pm
01 May 2007
No question there.
http://greyfalcon.net/carbon
Second, we know water vapor can't be the cause
However it can do a very good job at magnifying the warming.
http://greyfalcon.net/watervapor.png
And this was proven by the recent findings that the troposphere is warming faster than the surface.
http://greyfalcon.net/trends.png
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_hypothesis
We know it's not the Sun
http://greyfalcon.net/solar4.png
And what we should be seeing IF CO2 were the cause is
The surface warming
The troposphere warming faster than the surface
And the stratosphere cooling.
And thats exactly what Is happening.
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing.png
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 10:16 pm
01 May 2007
Over an above your notes are
# Sea temperature increasing dramatically .... water loses heat via evaporation, so the OCEAN should not be heating so fast
# Global drought is taking hold, so sea water is not evaporating sufficiently, clear skies are becoming entrenched, rain is failing
There is a twofold process occurring
The main and fatal changes are due to an oiled sea. The greenhouse gas overpressure is balancing the lack of water vapour at present by boosting the heat capacity of the atmosphere ....
The global climate change problem is very complex, and to undo it is even more difficult.
Oh it will undo itself, but humankind will then be extinct.
omegafour.com
Permalink
IronRinger Posted 2:25 am
02 May 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
Avery? Mister "pesticides are good for you"?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Trashing_organ ...
As to the "skeptic" vs "denier" debate above, the word "skeptic" is right out. People taking money from ExxonMobil, the API, the CEI... are not skeptics. They're shills.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:18 am
02 May 2007
We could call them "lobbyists".
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:49 am
02 May 2007
It's interesting that the original Crypto-Malthusian stance was a new Ice Age...now it's all heat.
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:51 am
02 May 2007
No question there.
http://greyfalcon.net/carbon
You're using a You Tube video as a scientific reference to explain the linkage of CO2 to global warming?
What's next...pick up stix and paper dolls?
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:52 am
02 May 2007
If you look at the amount of money behind the AGW Crypto-Malthusians, it's two orders of magnitude of what the skeptics get -- who are mostly self funded, or retired scientists who are protected and can speak the truth
You Read It Here First
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:58 am
02 May 2007
And the idea is to point out that even the heaviest detractors admit that the rise in CO2 is caused by industry.
Which is pretty undeniable.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:12 am
02 May 2007
And the idea is to point out that even the heaviest detractors admit that the rise in CO2 is caused by industry.
That's balderdash.
Even the IPCC cautiously says that man "contributes" to CO2 production.
You Read It Here First
Permalink
blueberrysushi Posted 4:16 am
02 May 2007
The handful of scientists who dispute climate change may have to find alternative funding sources (e.g. Exxon/Mobil) because their views aren't supported by theory. Theories are explanations that best fit the data available. They are not politically-motivated stabs at mountains of evidence. If many scientists were to accumulate evidence that disproved anthropogenic climate change theory, then we would see some very different funding scenarios.
That said, I think that there is too much reliance on climate change as an explanation for everything. I see constant reference to climate change in my field, when other explanations may fit best. It is a shame that climate change has become a fallback explanation, because it may undermine the seriousness of the issue and the reality of its consequences (if you can disprove a few things, you'll have people claiming you can disprove the lot).
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:25 am
02 May 2007
The handful of scientists who dispute climate change may have to find alternative funding sources (e.g. Exxon/Mobil) because their views aren't supported by theory.
First of all, true scientists have been coming out of the woodwork to repudiate AGW (aka Crypto-Malthusians).
Secondly, I notice that the so-called "skeptics" have names...and often very well recognized and highly decorated ones. Book after book is tearing the hoax down plank by plank.
I have yet to locate one real well known scientist who has publically bought the AGW concept hook, line and sinker.
And I don't mean IPCCC -- I mean a real individual scientist who is reiterating Al Gore's claptrap.
You Read It Here First
Permalink
blueberrysushi Posted 4:37 am
02 May 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:49 am
02 May 2007
And now we're at 380 ppm
Furthermore, we know it's our CO2 because it's predominantly a different isotope of carbon than what would be natural.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
FACT: The rise in CO2 is manmade.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:17 am
02 May 2007
Notice, the IPCC has been in business since 90s...every time their claims are revealed as fraudulent, they "cook the books" and add more FUD.
The Sulfate Aerosol Fraud
The IPCC's 1990 report claimed that computerized global climate models shows a warming trend broadly consistent with real-world observations. But the real-world observations were of a slow, erratic global warming that started too early to be blamed on human CO2 emissions. It has been going on in inexplicable surges (1850-1870, 1920-1940) instead of following the strong, steady upward trend of human CO2 emissions after 1940. Moreover, the IPCC and the models were embarassed about the 1940-1975 cooling trend, which no one had predicted, and which the IPCC could not explain.
To cover itself the IPCC added a cooling factor to the greenhouse analysis after 1990 -- a claim that tiny aerosol particles produced by the emissions of sulfur dioxide from electric power plants had overwhelmed the warming effect of the CO2.
The second IPCC report, published in 1996, again invoked the sulfate aerosol effect and produed the memorable but essentially meaningless phrase in its summary the "the balance of evidence suggests a human effect on climate".
By the time the third IPCC report was published in 2001, the sulfate aerosol "fix" has proved in conflict with observed reality.
The aerosols are produced mainly where industrial activity is highest...
The third IPCC report swept the aerosol question under the rug, thus removed the factor that "enabled" it to say its model observations were consistent with reality. However, the 2001 report kept its preconceived conclusion that "new evidence" made it likely that "most of the warming of the past 50 years" came from human production of greenhouse gases.
You Read It Here First
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:33 am
02 May 2007
http;/www.greyfalcon.net/cooling
Even Lindzen agrees the cooling hype was just that. Hype.
http;/www.greyfalcon.net/lindzencooling.png
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:33 am
02 May 2007
http://www.greyfalcon.net/cooling
Even Lindzen agrees the cooling hype was just that. Hype.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/lindzencooling.png
Permalink