Reject sceptics' attempts to derail global climate deal, UN chief urges
Ban Ki-moon urges environment ministers to reject attempts by sceptics to undermine negotiations by exaggerating shortcomings in Himalayan glaciers report.
"Tell the world that you unanimously agree that climate change is a clear and present danger," Ban said.
These are the same faces who less than three months ago couldn't bring themselves to agree on what to do about this 'clear and present danger' at Copenhagen. Some thought we should spend 1% of the GDP of the 'west' on the climate protection of the 'developing world', while others felt that was an empty gesture and we should do more. Still others wanted assurances that this spending was guaranteed to be on top of other aid projects and not instead of.
When you have so many people arguing over what's in it for them it's not really surprising that they can't manage to agree to save the world.
There are the western leaders who pontificate about the subject every day. They've even started denigrating their own populations, calling anyone who disagrees with them flat-earthers, deniers and deluded. They all seem to have their own projects that will raise money, from us, for pie in the sky schemes that will likely see every taxpayer in their country paying more and more. Most of us are already taxed at the 50% mark already. But they will never commit to the demands of the developing world.
It seems to me that politicians in the west just want to raise more tax from us in a way that lets them do it with the least resistance, every single true believer I hear demands that we are taxed more to pay to save the world from a 2C rise in average global temperatures. I'm very wary of anyone who wants me to pay for their beliefs.
Meanwhile the developing world eye this greedily. And they are right to, they can see EU, Canadian, Aussie and US politicians parroting the same lines over and over. They are right to believe they are entitled to a slice of the pie. They say 600 billion a year, the west says maybe 40 and in between the UN thinks they should meet in the middle.
That's why true believers are quite happy to make noises about forcing through policy changes without the consent of the people. They know the politicians are using their hobby horse as a tool to force tax policies in. They know they have no hope of ever convincing the majority of opinion. They really only have one avenue they can go through. Tthe UN, with all it's corruption just happens to be their best hope for changing the world. It's no surprise that the most militant warmists also regularly shout off about social justice and anti-capitalist politics.
As that article above shows in it's punchline: "It should have been urgent last year, but we didn't live up to that urgency", they've got no chance with politicians.
Wednesday, 24 February 2010
Weather is not Climate
It seems that, in this fairly harsh winter of 2010, the deniers and the alarmists have more to argue about than ever. So when the snow came down, all the way down to Florida and Texas those who have reason to be sceptical of the theory of climate change / global warming had a bit of a field day with lots of mockery, satirical cartoons (mostly aimed at Al Gore) and a general feeling of, well, warmth inside because the climate change believers were getting it from all directions.
There was the release of emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. You know, the ones where the world was taught some new memes like 'hide the decline' (in published climate reconstructions, proxy data which did not fit the observations since 1960 were removed - but the same proxy types were still used to show the guessed temperatures going back another 900+ years) and offered a unique insight into just what was meant when 'peer-reviewed' was held up as a shield against all doubt in the methods (like pushing environmental issues). Google 'Climategate' for more of this.
Hot on the tails of that we seen the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at first ridicule, then claim this is not the real problem, then admit that a particular statement about the Himalayan Glaciers was incorrect, not properly peer reviewed and basically a lot of unadulterated nonsense. After this several other mistakes became apparent - and to be fair the sceptical camp should have exposed these claims much earlier than they did. Lessons to be learned on both sides?
Well, no. The alarmists have since then said the released emails are meaningless in the bigger scheme of things (though most of the scientists involved are the top guys in the field, so it's not a small local issue). They've also written off the IPCC failures as unimportant to the overall science and even just as typos.
In the background mother nature let rip with the biggest snowfall in over 30 years.
So there were the sceptics laughing at the alarmists who first came out with a mantra they have Weather is NOT Climate, then when that fell on deaf ears they tried the line that extremes of weather, like snow and ice, are actually examples of climate change.
Their theory here appears to be this:
Weather is not climate, record breaking weather events are always examples of climate change.
Has this always been their theory? I find what people have said in the past, rather than what they are saying right now is generally more instructive. Especially since so many of the vocal supporters of climate change as a theory of everything have vested interests. They run consultancies, charities, advocacy groups and lobbying firms all of whom do not have any reason to exist outside of the science of climate change leading to man made global warming.
You tell me if this theory is a new one or a long standing, but quietly believed principle that all the warmers held...
One other thing for you to try on Google, hardly scientific, but worth the noting;
Search for webpages that mention "Climate Change", "less snow" and the year 2010 - 13,700 results
and then for webpages that mention "Climate Change", "more snow" and the year 2010 - 136,000 results, so yep, they certainly have been predicting more snow in 2010 (while the snow is here), and then what about webpages that don't mention the year 2010?? 33600 results, so it appears more snow didn't really come into the alarmists peripheral vision until there really was more snow. As I said, not scientific, but then neither are most of them.
There was the release of emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. You know, the ones where the world was taught some new memes like 'hide the decline' (in published climate reconstructions, proxy data which did not fit the observations since 1960 were removed - but the same proxy types were still used to show the guessed temperatures going back another 900+ years) and offered a unique insight into just what was meant when 'peer-reviewed' was held up as a shield against all doubt in the methods (like pushing environmental issues). Google 'Climategate' for more of this.
Hot on the tails of that we seen the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at first ridicule, then claim this is not the real problem, then admit that a particular statement about the Himalayan Glaciers was incorrect, not properly peer reviewed and basically a lot of unadulterated nonsense. After this several other mistakes became apparent - and to be fair the sceptical camp should have exposed these claims much earlier than they did. Lessons to be learned on both sides?
Well, no. The alarmists have since then said the released emails are meaningless in the bigger scheme of things (though most of the scientists involved are the top guys in the field, so it's not a small local issue). They've also written off the IPCC failures as unimportant to the overall science and even just as typos.
In the background mother nature let rip with the biggest snowfall in over 30 years.
So there were the sceptics laughing at the alarmists who first came out with a mantra they have Weather is NOT Climate, then when that fell on deaf ears they tried the line that extremes of weather, like snow and ice, are actually examples of climate change.
Their theory here appears to be this:
Weather is not climate, record breaking weather events are always examples of climate change.
Has this always been their theory? I find what people have said in the past, rather than what they are saying right now is generally more instructive. Especially since so many of the vocal supporters of climate change as a theory of everything have vested interests. They run consultancies, charities, advocacy groups and lobbying firms all of whom do not have any reason to exist outside of the science of climate change leading to man made global warming.
You tell me if this theory is a new one or a long standing, but quietly believed principle that all the warmers held...
- 1991 Recent variations in Norhern Hemisphere snow cover "The reduced extent of snow cover over northern hemisphere lands has coincided with some of the warmest surface air temperatures of the past century. An examination of the past 19 years of snow and temperature data shows a striking relationship between the two."
- 1991 Warmer winters fit greenhouse model "The warming of the past three years has been most marked in winter, which is also predicted by computer models. And this observation has been reinforced by satellite pictures. They show less snow cover over the Eurasian land masses during this and the past two winters than at any time since records began 20 years ago." including quotes from Phil Jones, CRU from 1991 on polar temps, El Nino effects and snow cover.
- 1991 Interpretation of Snow-Climate Feedback as Produced by 17 General Circulation Models "Snow feedback is expected to amplify global warming caused by increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases. The conventional explanation is that a warmer Earth will have less snow cover, resulting in a darker planet that absorbs more solar radiation. An intercomparison of 17 general circulation models, for which perturbations of sea surface temperature were used as a surrogate climate change, suggests that this explanation is overly simplistic. The results instead indicate that additional amplification or moderation may be caused both by cloud interactions and longwave radiation. One measure of this net effect of snow feedback was found to differ markedly among the 17 climate models, ranging from weak negative feedback in some models to strong positive feedback in others.
- 1995 Seasonal relationship between temperature, precipitation and snow cover in a mountainous region "Higher winter temperatures can be expected to lead to a general decrease of snow and to a decrease in precipitation, but only at higher elevations; warmer winters would conversely be associated with an increase in precipitation at lower altitudes."
- 1999 The impact of global warming in North America a list of things that are symptomatic of global warming, every one of them is an example of heat and warmth not one predicting snow or colder weather.
- 2000 WHAT’S FAIR? CONSUMERS AND CLIMATE CHANGE "Climate change will affect many customary activities. Cultural impacts include Christmas without snow or fewer snow recreational opportunities. Skiing and other snow sports, for example, are likely to become less available. One study predicts a 60 percent decrease in skiing overall (Cline 1992). A widespread snowmelt in January or February can end the New England ski season. In eighty years, climate change is estimated to decrease the snowpack in the Cascades of the western United States by as much
as half during the ski season, while the snowpack in the Rockies is estimated to fall
almost 30 percent (Leung 1999). In some southern areas of the United States, such as
the South Georgia Bay, the downhill ski season may be completely eliminated (Watson
1998)." multiple quotes here are to higher other snowless predictions. - Projections for Temperature/Precipitation "When data from the Great Lakes Watershed from 1961-1990 is used to run climate change scenarios for 2050, the trend is towards less snow and more rain."
- 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report - Working Group II -13.2.1.4. Mountains and Subarctic Environments "As warming progresses in the future, current regions of snow precipitation increasingly will experience precipitation in the form of rain. For every 1C increase in temperature, the snowline rises by about 150 m; as a result, less snow will accumulate at low elevations than today, although there could be greater snow accumulation above the freezing level because of increased precipitation in some regions"
- 2005 Less Snow, Less Water: Climate Disruption in the West "It is very likely that more winter precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow"
- 2006 Less Snow and Drier Summers in German Forecast "New weather models predict arid summers and less time for winter sports in Germany if climate changed isn't turned around"
- 2006 Climate Change: So where has all the snow gone? "But it is not just the Alps that are sweltering in this warmest of winters. Friday was the hottest winter day ever recorded in Moscow at 8.6 degrees centigrade - as opposed to the usual minus four degrees - and the temperature in the Russian capital is expected to climb even higher over the next few days."
- 2007 Not as pure as snow "there has been an undeniable reduction of snow cover in the northern hemisphere over the last 45 years or so"
One other thing for you to try on Google, hardly scientific, but worth the noting;
Search for webpages that mention "Climate Change", "less snow" and the year 2010 - 13,700 results
and then for webpages that mention "Climate Change", "more snow" and the year 2010 - 136,000 results, so yep, they certainly have been predicting more snow in 2010 (while the snow is here), and then what about webpages that don't mention the year 2010?? 33600 results, so it appears more snow didn't really come into the alarmists peripheral vision until there really was more snow. As I said, not scientific, but then neither are most of them.
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
Hello world
10 PRINT 'HELLO WORLD';
20 GOTO 10.
I used to do a small amount of blogging a long while ago. First on Live Journal, then Blogger and then on my own domain. It was a mix of sweary politics, technology articles and things I'd been doing (like walking the West Highland Way or going to a gig).
I tend to get totally into something for months then walk away. So this time, no pressure to write something, it's not a diary, it's an outlet.
The reason I'm doing it is simply because I've began commenting on others blogs again so often perhaps I have some more to say.
We'll see.
20 GOTO 10.
I used to do a small amount of blogging a long while ago. First on Live Journal, then Blogger and then on my own domain. It was a mix of sweary politics, technology articles and things I'd been doing (like walking the West Highland Way or going to a gig).
I tend to get totally into something for months then walk away. So this time, no pressure to write something, it's not a diary, it's an outlet.
The reason I'm doing it is simply because I've began commenting on others blogs again so often perhaps I have some more to say.
We'll see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)