Let the Global Warming Wars commence again...

[Polish_Silver]

the city journal article

Shutting down debate on global warming:

http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_...l-warming.html

Of course it was never about real science; it was politics and taxation.

Soon we may have to worry about something worse than a little higher temperatures:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...es-plunge.html

Big government's global warming hell may soon be frozen over.

The CJ article summarizes Salby very well. I have never seen a discussion of Co2 dynamics by the AGW people.

[Verrocchio]

Re: Let the Global Warming Wars commence again...

We've been watching this since February 2008. From a thread started back then:

According to some Canadian scientists, the natural environment could serve up a surprise, as the sun may be entering a Maunder Minimum. An MM occurs every couple of centuries, and the previous MM occurred at the time of the Little Ice Age, a period of bitter cold between 1650 and 1715. The result was massive crop failures and famine.

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...ooling?p=27141

[vt]

Re: Let the Global Warming Wars commence again...

Shutting down debate on global warming:

http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_...l-warming.html

Of course it was never about real science; it was politics and taxation.

Soon we may have to worry about something worse than a little higher temperatures:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...es-plunge.html

Big government's global warming hell may soon be frozen over.

[Polish_Silver]

Data vs IPCC

he long-term trend of declining CO2 emissions per unit of energy supplied reversed after 2000. Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years.

IPCC via Fred


This excerpt is very misleading.

"Climate Scientists" is a highly selective and relatively small group of people, dependent on climate crisis ideology for funding. If you expand the category to geologists, you get a much wider range of opinon.

Even within "climate science" the opinions are far from unanimous.

Dissenters:
Judith Curry
Richard Lindzen
Christy
Spencer




Modern temperature records (actual thermometers) are only a few hundred years old. Anything earlier has to rely on tree rings, ice cores, etc, which give only local info. Never the less, there is no sign that this is an especially warm period or that the small temperature changes observed are due to human activities. For example, tree rings indicate that northern europe was warmer than now both during Roman times and the Medieval warming.
There were huge temperature variations around the Younger Dryas that had nothing to do with fossil fuels.

Regarding CO2 emissions,
The annual non-human source and sink of CO2 is about 20X greater than the human output. Unless you think the natural sources and sinks are precisely balanced (and they are NOT) the human output is just a correction term.
Further, observations of actual CO2 do not confirm (12 min) that it is coming from fossil fuels. CO2 concentration peaks in may and is minimal in September. Why would this be if it was dominated by human emissions?

Actual data contradict conclusions based on computer simulations.

[GRG55]

Re: Let the Global Warming Wars commence again...

Not incredibly relevant but I noticed this morning on Amazon that their Kindle can be rented for $10/month.

We have seen the future and it's fees . . . .

Yep, how else you going to keep the sheeple living pay cheque to pay cheque? If they actually owned something they might be able to eventually retire. And just imagine what a catastrophe to the global economic model THAT would present.

...And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the fee and the home of the slave.

[don]

Re: Let the Global Warming Wars commence again...

GW was simply another tax and spend, and control, ploy.

Not incredibly relevant but I noticed this morning on Amazon that their Kindle can be rented for $10/month.

We have seen the future and it's fees . . . .

[vt]

Re: Let the Global Warming Wars commence again...

When a (warming) theory is flawed and data falsely manipulated to try to convince, you can no longer fool the citizenry.

GW was simply another tax and spend, and control, ploy.

[GRG55]

Re: Let the Global Warming Wars commence again...

Peak Climate Change?

Quite a remarkable turn around from the Labor Party's 2007 landslide victory platform under leader Kevin Rudd.

Death of Australian Pollution Levy Marks First U-Turn on Climate

Jul 18, 2014 6:54 AM MT

Australia’s decision to repeal its levy limiting fossil-fuel pollution makes it the first nation to turn back from a market approach to fighting global warming.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s government won final approval from Parliament yesterday to scrap a levy about 300 companies paid for their carbon dioxide emissions. The move leaves Australia, the largest polluter per capita among industrial nations, without a system for reducing greenhouse gases as it prepares to host a meeting of the Group of 20 nations...

...Abbott won a landslide election victory last year for his Liberal-National coalition that he said gave him a mandate to throw out the “toxic tax” on carbon, which was triple Europe’s carbon price. The government estimates the repeal will save the average family A$550 a year in lower electricity prices and make Australian companies more competitive.

Australia’s climate law, passed in 2011 by the previous government, raised A$7.3 billion for the government last year. Companies such as BHP Billiton Ltd. (BHP), the biggest mining company, were to pay A$25.40 ($24) a ton this year, the world’s highest price for carbon permits. While Japan and Canada have backtracked on commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, only Australia has dismantled an established carbon-tax mechanism...

Carbon price falls - Kevin Rudd’s day of shame

17 JUL, 2:12 PM

In defiance of the bulk of professional economist opinion, this government has succeeded in removing the carbon pricing scheme (a.k.a. carbon tax) today.

The scheme is by no means ideal and it isn’t the be all and end all for controlling carbon pollution.
Nonetheless, most economists seem to agree that putting a price on carbon would be the most efficient and effective way to reduce carbon pollution...

...Yet the scheme will be abandoned in an atmosphere of incredible political animosity and division. This is especially puzzling when back in 2007 and 2008 there was a remarkable political consensus. Both Labor and the Coalition, but also key business and environmental representative groups, were in agreement that pricing carbon should be the central response to lowering Australia’s emissions.

What went wrong that led this to unravel so badly?

Sure, Tony Abbott had a big part to play, but to a large extent the blame must fall on Labor’s Kevin Rudd.
Philip Chubb, head of journalism as Monash University, and former national editor of the ABC’s 7.30 Report reveals in his book, Power Failure, some incredible character flaws that led Rudd to make some appalling mistakes that squandered the political consensus on carbon trading...

...It seemed as if the government simply took it for granted that its policy agenda would be enacted. Over 2008 and 2009 the Labor government didn’t seem to spend much time at all communicating to the public about how carbon pricing would impact on them personally and their communities, and how the potential negative impacts would be managed. And it left a vacuum ripe for exploitation by vested interests with assorted scare campaigns.

The most shocking thing Chubb revealed, and the best illustration of how Rudd’s ego bordered on the delusional, was the attitude he took to the 2009 climate treaty negotiations in Copenhagen,

Rudd went off to Copenhagen believing that he alone could solve the problems of the world, quite literally, and that he would come back in triumph as the leader of the world having secured a global agreement. And of course he came back not just empty handed, but completely devastated.

This is truly incredible given what was obvious about the two major players – the US and China.

For China to move, given their relatively low levels of income per person, they needed to see concrete action from the United States.

And the reality was that while US President Obama was no doubt keen to do something meaningful on climate change, to follow through on any major initiative required passing the gauntlet of the US Congress. At the time of Copenhagen, Obama didn’t have an emissions trading scheme enacted (and none has passed the Congress since). Also, under the US constitution for an international treaty to become binding, Obama would have to obtain two-thirds approval from the Senate, which seemed incredibly unlikely.

Yet somehow Rudd thought he himself could overcome this...

[lektrode]

Re: Let the Global Warming Wars commence again...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/2...-sea-ice-area/

Ice is increasing in the Antartic.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/2...t-month-again/

The global warming "scientists" (on the grant gravy train) have been found to have fudged the figures to support their "desired" findings. Yes some anti global warmers have also taken money,
but they haven't provided inaccurate data to support their thesis.

Yes, we must reduce the use of fossil fuels. But where is the call among the global warmers for massive building of nuclear? Where is the call to use teleconferencing and other
technological solutions? The supporters only wish to tax the middle class more and control more of what citizens do. The public is not buying the scam.

nope - but as we're getting more of 'the picture' its starting to look like solving the problem isnt part of The Agenda, and nears eye can tell, it never was = just another money grab/re-distributionist scheme (or scam, like most of their others)

it would be one thing if some of it was being re-distributed to the middle class, but we already know thats also PURE BS.

HILARIOUS how the latest legal maneuvering on coal and in its resultant flurry of news (propaganda) how nobody even wants to bring up the N word (altho they're still getting plenty of press out of the other n word... every chance they can...)

I think c1ue left some time ago.

yeah, havent seen him for months now - methinks his app thing must be heating up - wonder if this one is affecting his plans?

[vt]

Re: Let the Global Warming Wars commence again...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/2...-sea-ice-area/

Ice is increasing in the Antartic.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/2...t-month-again/

The global warming "scientists" (on the grant gravy train) have been found to have fudged the figures to support their "desired" findings. Yes some anti global warmers have also taken money,
but they haven't provided inaccurate data to support their thesis.

Yes, we must reduce the use of fossil fuels. But where is the call among the global warmers for massive building of nuclear? Where is the call to use teleconferencing and other
technological solutions? The supporters only wish to tax the middle class more and control more of what citizens do. The public is not buying the scam.

[shiny!]

Re: Let the Global Warming Wars commence again...

I think c1ue left some time ago.

[Ghent12]

Re: Let the Global Warming Wars commence again...

As for the 'impending peak cheap oil' crisis: as I've said before: ultimately the ones who suffer - as in starve and/or remain in poverty - are those nations who are poor and who don't have natural resources which can be inflated in cost to compensate for energy/fertilizer/food cost.

Your strengths are with your understanding of the politics regarding the environment, and you are fairly weak on understanding social and economic phenomena. For instance, natural resources have almost no bearing on how a nation's economy fares. Nations rich in vast natural resources are often poor, such as the USSR which couldn't even feed itself from its fertile farmland. Nations with negligible natural resources can become top contenders globally (considering their size--or even not), such as Japan.

Nations, or more specifically societies, generally fare economically in proportion to their respect for the rule of law and their respect for the economic endeavors of their people. Put another way, a nation or society prospers when it respects its people and its people value being industrious.

I know your post is old, but you should consider wrapping your head around that.

[GRG55]

Re: Let the Global Warming Wars commence again...

1. I certainly do not feel "backed into a corner", mostly because the proponents of global warming have been forced to demonize objectors suggesting their own arguments, and their own faith in those arguments, is highly suspect.
2. As for a "growing consensus of opinion", at times like this I try not to forget Margaret Thatcher's observation that "Nothing is more obstinate than a fashionable consensus". And these days there's few things more fashionable than climbing aboard the climate change tour bus

But I do not expect that to last much longer. In the same way that the Davos groupies promptly dumped African poverty when a more attractive photo-op-with-a-starlet/celebrity "issue" (climate change) came along, I have complete confidence that your accurately predicted petroleum energy supply/demand imbalance will displace climate change as the globe's primary political and economic problem very shortly (and no amount of ETN gaming of the market, if that is actually even possible, will make any damn difference)

Well this might get the ranting and raving started again.
Maybe the IPCC should contract with the Fed to construct "better" models...

The global warming hiatus? Climate models all wrongly predicted warming, so let’s call it a discrepancy

June 16, 2014 | Last Updated:Jun 17 9:31 AM ET

While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) still uses the iconic word “unequivocal” to describe warming of the climate system over the past century, a new word has slipped into its lexicon: the “hiatus.” They have begun referring, with a bit of hesitant throat-clearing, to “the warming hiatus since 1998.”
Both satellites and surface records show that sometime around 2000, temperature data ceased its upward path and leveled off. Over the past 100 years there is a statistically significant upward trend in the data amounting to about 0.7 ^oC per century. If one looks only at the past 15 years though, there is no trend.

A leveling-off period is not, on its own, the least bit remarkable. What makes it remarkable is that it coincides with 20 years of rapidly rising atmospheric greenhouse gas levels. Since 1990, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen 13%, from 354 parts per million (ppm) to just under 400 ppm.

According to the IPCC, estimated “radiative forcing” of greenhouse gases (the term it uses to describe the expected heating effect) increased by 43% after 2005. Climate models all predicted that this should have led to warming of the lower troposphere and surface. Instead, temperatures flatlined and even started declining...

...The chart on this page reproduces an important diagram from Chapter 9 of the IPCC report. The gray line shows the surface temperature record (HadCRUT4 from the UK Met Office) from 1860 to the present. The black line shows the average of climate model runs covering the same interval. The black line in effect sums up mainstream views on how the climate works. Leading theories of major climatic mechanisms are programmed into models, which are then used to simulate the evolution of the climate. All models remain within a fairly narrow neighbourhood of the mean. This implies that the models share an overall central tendency and do not wander too far from it. In that sense the black line can be described as the mainstream thinking of contemporary climate science.



...But the post-1999 gap is something new. It has not only run the longest of any previous gap but it is still widening. Even if the black line were to rise over the next few years, it is difficult to foresee it ever catching up to and re-crossing the gray line. In other words, it is difficult to see models and observations ever agreeing again.


The IPCC briefly discussed the seriousness of the model-observation discrepancy in Chapter 9 of the 2013 report. It reports that over the 1998-2012 interval 111 out of 114 climate model runs over-predicted warming, achieving thereby, as it were, a 97% consensus.
The IPCC informally proposes several candidate explanations for this discrepancy, including the possibility that models are simply too sensitive to greenhouse gases, but does not identify a solution to the problem...

[c1ue]

Re: Let the Global Warming Wars commence again...

Can we revisit gravity, evolution and other similarly proven theories too while we're at it?

I love it - the power of 'assumptive close' marketing.

I hardly classify man made global warming as a proven theory.

For one thing, there is no smoking gun. For a second, all the predictions are based on modeling thus far.

From the aforementioned report:

John McLean, a climate data analyst based in Melbourne, Australia and Tom Harris, the Ottawa, Canada based Executive Director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, researched the inside story of the IPCC and wrote about it in the Canada Free Press.

They tell us the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is actually divided into three working groups. Only one of those groups, Working Group I (WG I) is assigned to report on the extent and possible causes of past climate change as well as future projections. Within that group they determined how many scientists really did agree with the most important IPCC conclusion, namely that humans are causing significant climate change--in other words the key parts of WG I. According to them, in total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.

That is a very long way from the "consensus of 2,500 scientists" that is constantly reported. Another insider tells us that while several thousand scientists were consulted in crafting the report, not all of them agreed with its conclusions.

Dr. John W. Zillman is a generally supportive member of the IPPC. He noted: "[The IPCC was] meticulous in insisting that the final decision on whether to accept particular review comments should reside with chapter Lead Authors." He then ads, "Some Lead Authors ignored valid critical comments or failed to... reflect dissenting views... "The report was therefore the result of a political rather than a scientific process."

As for the 'impending peak cheap oil' crisis: as I've said before: ultimately the ones who suffer - as in starve and/or remain in poverty - are those nations who are poor and who don't have natural resources which can be inflated in cost to compensate for energy/fertilizer/food cost.

$5/gallon gasoline itself won't destroy the United States, but $5 gasoline coupled with a wasteful and profligate national lifestyle and expectation set, plus an ongoing demonstration of the Peter principle in government and corporate management, does make significant decline a realistic outcome.

Sure, we may get another Teddy Roosevelt. God help us if we get another FDR.

As times get worse, every sovereign entity ever known has always done one of two things: turn inward or start a major 'war for survival'.

Bad times aren't the only cause for wars - but are definitely major ones.

[WDCRob]

Re: Let the Global Warming Wars commence again...

Can we revisit gravity, evolution and other similarly proven theories too while we're at it?