Global Warming

[Rorschach]

For SN...

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/ ... logs&_r=1&

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16753

[Rorschach]

Debunking Monk...

IPCC calculations show global warming won’t be harmful if it resumes
By Alan Moran - posted Thursday, 9 October 2014 Sign Up for free e-mail updates!


October 1 marked an important anniversary: 18 years during which the earth average temperature has remained unchanged.

Satellite data available from 1988 has allowed very precise measurements of global temperatures. These at first confirmed a warming trend.

But the satellite recordings, greeted with such enthusiastic fanfare by the warmist fraternity, have, for the past 18 years, bitten the hand that fed them.

A number of hypotheses have been advanced to explain the inconvenient truth of this data. But NASA has just reported that there is no evidence that the increased heat is hiding in the deep oceans.

This invites the question: how much damage does a doubling of carbon dioxide levels bring and what is the cost of measures to prevent this doubling?

Significantly, the costs the Inter governmental Panel on Climate Change attributes to warming are quite small.

The IPCC's summary for policymakers glosses over the numbers and concentrates on scary rhetoric, an outcome that led to the resignation of Richard Tol, co-chairman of a key working group.

Having been forced to acknowledge that global warming has a relatively trivial effect on real levels of human welfare, the IPCC seeks to ensure that its estimates of the costs of pursuing serious carbon dioxide reductions are not too great. It does this by assuming massive new low-cost breakthroughs in solar, and in decarbonising coal emissions as well as by foreshadowing technologies not yet on the drawing boards.

And we all know how Monk loves believing in technological fairy stories...

Of course, if these technologies are really about to emerge there is no point in investing in current generation renewable energy. Indeed, whether we are on the cusp of technological breakthrough or not, there is no point investing in renewables that will always rely on expensive subsidies.

Even this higher figure is clearly understated as we can see with Australia's experience. Many of those who support the retention of Australia's mandatory renewable energy target now want to let aluminium smelting off the hook. The exclusion of aluminium smelting would still maintain the cost of the MRET for all other businesses and for consumers. This would exacerbate the hardship of many of Australia's most vulnerable, including the disabled and the elderly already living in energy poverty.

The emerging world superpowers, China and India, consider the costs of abatement to be exorbitant and refuse to impose such measures on their economies. Without them no world agreement would be meaningful. For the moment, the evidence for global warming is lacking but, even if warming resumes, the IPPC's calculations show that it will not be very harmful. Attempts to prevent it, even if politically feasible, will cost more than the damage emissions may be causing.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16757

[GeorgeH]

You need to debunk the science, slug, what I think has nothing to do with anything.

I see you posted some boring screed but did not give a link. was it Andrew Dolt or Wattswrongwiththat?

[Rorschach]

You need to debunk the science, slug, what I think has nothing to do with anything.

I see you posted some boring screed but did not give a link. was it Andrew Dolt or Wattswrongwiththat?

Monkey Boy every time you post here I debunk you.
Every time someone posts junk science I post appropriate comments and information... YOU ignore all that.
Fine we know you are pig ignorant.
As for the link you are being abusive about who knows what it is because you didn't quote it.
Since the last few pages has me posting only links and excerpts with links one wonders how drunk you actually are or if you are just lying again for the sake of it.

[GeorgeH]

I was probably posting about your last post. Jesus, you don’t think I go back pages to read all your boooooooring crap do you?

[Rorschach]

I was probably posting about your last post. Jesus, you don’t think I go back pages to read all your boooooooring crap do you?

probably?
But no one sane or sober could tell since it mentions the author, and links to the site.
Making your post either the blatherings of a complete nincompoop or a liar or both.

[GeorgeH]

Forget it. It was likely garbage science anyway.

[Rorschach]

You need to debunk the science, slug, what I think has nothing to do with anything.

I see you posted some boring screed but did not give a link. was it Andrew Dolt or Wattswrongwiththat?

yet in the post it stated....

IPCC calculations show global warming won’t be harmful if it resumes
By Alan Moran - posted Thursday, 9 October 2014 Sign Up for free e-mail updates!

and

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16757

Your ignorance is noted.

[GeorgeH]

Yeah, this shows it is garbage science:

October 1 marked an important anniversary: 18 years during which the earth average temperature has remained unchanged.

[Rorschach]

Yeah, this shows it is garbage science:

October 1 marked an important anniversary: 18 years during which the earth average temperature has remained unchanged.

Like I said your ignorance is noted....
The IPCC calls it a PAUSE, you deny it... denier!
As for the latest move of the goalposts...
"But NASA has just reported that there is no evidence that the increased heat is hiding in the deep oceans."
I already debunked the rest of the crap you kept repeating... you of course did what you always do... ignored it.
Fine. We all know where your head is planted. No need for drawings.