errr Global Warming?

[Rorschach]

It matters not that there is no empirical scientific evidence to support these claims. Even the 2C target is not based on science, it was originally plucked out of thin air by the European People’s Party for election purposes. But then climate change is not about credible scientific evidence. It has its roots in Marxism, and ultimately the Green Fund is presided over by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, run by Costa Rican Marxist Christiana Figueres. The “paradigm-shifting” fund will provide employment for an army of green bureaucrats who will offer “concessional finance” for the development needs of less advanced countries.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion ... 45c875b05e

[Super Nova]

The Australian wants me to subscribe and pay money so I cannot read the full article.

So the only way to discredit global warming is to accuse all those suggesting action is needed as belonging to some huge conspiracy theory. OK.

I guess we will leave it there for now until you prove your position or further evidence of global warming's existence and the continued need to action comes.

[Rorschach]

The Australian wants me to subscribe and pay money so I cannot read the full article.

So the only way to discredit global warming is to accuse all those suggesting action is needed as belonging to some huge conspiracy theory. OK.

I guess we will leave it there for now until you prove your position or further evidence of global warming's existence and the continued need to action comes.

I guess you failed to mention how your previous ridicule was totally and factually rebutted.

As for the last post you could try to discredit the points brought up... good luck with that. be your best option.

[Super Nova]

Taking action is not Marxist.

There are many organisations that support action.

Lefties taking advantage of this is just part of the solution, not the problem. We do not want the developing world to go through the same dependency on fossil fuel we went through, so we need to help them. It is to humanities long term advantage. We could also make a buck out of it as well.

[IQS.RLOW]

Taking action is not Marxist.

There are many organisations that support action.

Lefties taking advantage of this is just part of the solution, not the problem. We do not want the developing world to go through the same dependency on fossil fuel we went through, so we need to help them. It is to humanities long term advantage. We could also make a buck out of it as well.

I can't understand what you are saying when you have a mouthful of big black Obama cock down your throat.

It is not the "emergency" problem you have been fed and swallow with glee.

[Super Nova]

I can't understand what you are saying ............

This is true.

[IQS.RLOW]

I can't understand what you are saying ............

This is true.

...because you don't make sense.

[IQS.RLOW]

I can't understand what you are saying ............

This is true.

...because you don't make sense.

...and you swallow any old bullshit fed to you while failing to investigate the science.

You are a denier.

[Rorschach]

One more time for SN who's been in denial of the facts every time someone posts them...

Good grief... that old wives tale.
Talk about swallowing the bait hook line and sinker...
That was discredited the moment it first came out.

If you’ve ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you’ve probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?

The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual–and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.

The questions to ask is what exactly do they agree on and how did that figure come about? Well the thinking of us know for a fact there is no concensus and that 97% is a lie.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein ... 100-wrong/

Are the public aware when they are lectured that ‘97% of scientists’ agree based on the Doran paper, by their media, lobbyists, activist scientists and their politicians justifying climate action, that the UK, Germany, Spain, France, Australia, New Zealand respondents made up less than 3% of the survey in total. China had 3 scientists respond (three not 3%), Russian and India zero.

On occasion when challenged about the 97% figure depending on 75 scientists from a survey of 10,000, it is usually met with a response that these were the experts in the field of climate science and this is what maters not the number that took part.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/w ... tists-say/

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?

"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240 ... 2813553136

And the list and facts go on and on and on SN.

You can call me out any time you like SN... as for OBAMA

YOU WANT TO CALL SOMEONE OUT SN at least have the good manners and honesty to admit when you've been hoisted on you own petard.

[Super Nova]

This is not the time for apathy. We need to move forward from this state of mind, stop looking for excuses for doing nothing, and take action.


Why Scientists and Politicians Need to Find Common Ground
Dec 28, 20153,837 views

In this series, professionals predict the ideas and trends that will shape 2016. Read the posts here, then write your own (use #BigIdeas2016 in your piece).

As individuals and as a global society, we can no longer ignore the threat of climate change and environmental destruction — a force that will take center stage in our global consciousness in 2016. Along with it, a new focus on sustainability and environmental responsibility must come to define the year if we wish to secure a healthy future for ourselves and for future generations.

For the first time in Earth’s history, the characteristics of a geological era are closely linked with human activity. Since 1950, we have entered a new era that has become known as the Anthropocene, or "the human epoch" — the first in which the actions of humankind have been the primary factor shaping the planet, in a manner equivalent to the most severe forces of nature.

Human beings have evolved with the ability to react to imminent threats to our survival. But what about a problem that may arise in 10 or 20 years? It’s more difficult for us to feel concern about a future crisis , and we tend to approach it with a “we’ll see what happens” attitude.

We’re even less inclined to take into account the way that our current way of life will affect the environment for future generations. We refuse to give up instant pleasures, as doing so requires us to envisage the potentially disastrous long-term consequences of our actions. Diana Liverman, a respected environmental scientist, has lamented the fact that CO2 doesn’t have a pink color. If everyone could see the sky getting pinker and pinker with the more CO2 we emitted, we’d be likely to feel increasingly alarmed at the effect our emissions were having on the environment.

Many of us find it difficult to take responsibility for future generations. Groucho Marx wonderfully illustrates this egocentric attitude with his famous quip: “Why should I care about future generations? What have they ever done for me?”

Turning a blind eye to the long-term consequences of our current way of life is a luxury we can no longer afford. Now is the time to change this attitude and deal directly with the problem at hand, and to find individual, community, and global means of solving it.

Implementing the necessary course of action requires the strengthening of governance and international cooperation, but also, and above all, the promotion of the values of altruism and solidarity at community levels as well as within ourselves as individuals.

To move forward to this essential shift, a close collaboration between science and government is essential. We must establish an atmosphere of trust between scientists, decision-makers, economists, business leaders, and the media so that the latter parties listen to and understand the scientific consensus and begin to work toward a common goal in a spirit of cooperation and solidarity.

Pessimism and apathy are a waste of time. Solutions do exist. Environmentalist Yann Arthus-Bertrand said that if we want to preserve the well-being of our biosphere, “it’s too late to be a pessimist.”[ii] In contrast to other irremediable forms of environmental degradation — the loss of animal and plant species in particular — global warming is to some extent reversible.

There are other reasons to be optimistic. Among them are the potential of replacing all fossil fuel energy with renewable energy by 2050 and the dawn of a “triply green” agricultural revolution. Restoring and preserving the earth’s ecosystems do involve short-term spending, but they represent an excellent long-term investment.

Action is beginning. For example the G20 international forum has now committed to bringing an end to subsidies for fossil fuels, whose usage will decrease as renewable energy sources are made available in poorer countries, so as not to handicap these nations with punitively high rises in energy prices. And in Paris this month, world leaders will come together to find agreement on pledges to dramatically cut carbon emissions.

If we were to succeed in generating almost all of the energy we need from renewable sources, we would have resolved a large part of the climate challenge. It is imperative, then, to explore and make use of hydrocarbon alternatives. The beauty of energy management lies in the fact that, once produced, both forms of energy are entirely interchangeable: electricity from coal is exactly the same as electricity produced using wind power. There is new technology that we can draw on to lessen the use of coal and fossil fuel, like nuclear fusion, that do not create pollution. Innovative sources of renewable energy, like wind-trees and wave power, are already being implemented.

We need to encourage environmentally responsible investments and companies, and create more green cities following the example set by metropolises like Portland and Stockholm.

The progress required to relieve these environmental challenges is fraught with psychological obstacles, ranging from inertia to denial and a “wait-and-see” attitude. The increasingly disquieting news about climate change, the loss of biodiversity, and other serious environmental challenges can create a blasé attitude among some people or, conversely, elicit a feeling of powerlessness about the scale of the transformations and interventions required to overcome the problem.

This is not the time for apathy. We need to move forward from this state of mind, stop looking for excuses for doing nothing, and take action.

In the past, local communities have of course successfully overcome similar difficulties, but the problem we face today is entirely different: it is the first time in human history that our species is associated with rapid and radical planetary change. It’s a problem that requires a global response.

It is an urgent imperative that we recognize the links between humans and nature, our economies and the biggest transformations affecting our planet.

We must be more aware than ever of our place in the biosphere. Leading scientists have warned of the severe and irreversible effects of climate change unless urgent action is taken to reduce carbon emissions. As we approach the boundaries of what Earth can offer and tolerate, we must realize that our future well-being depends on our capacity to remain within these planetary boundaries. “Harmony with Nature,” a 2010 report presented by the Secretary General of the United Nations, shines a light on this interdependence:

“Ultimately, environmentally destructive behavior is the result of a failure to recognize that human beings are an inseparable part of Nature and that we cannot damage it without severely damaging ourselves.” [iii]

Of course, one person cannot change this situation single-handedly. But a critical mass of like-minded people can indeed tilt public opinion, culture and institutions. As we near a tipping point of uncontrollable climate change, we can together create another tipping point: One to change our global culture through altruism.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/big-idea ... icle-title