Ottawa, Canada, December 11, 2011: “Developed nations are not guilty of causing the climate change that developing nations claim they are suffering,” said Tom Harris, executive director of ICSC which is headquartered in Ottawa, Canada. “Climate changes all the time—both warming and cooling—due to natural causes and there is nothing that we can do to stop it. However, to the degree possible, and considering our economic circumstances, developed nations still have a moral obligation to devote a proportion of their foreign aid to helping the world’s most vulnerable people adapt to natural climate events.”
ICSC chief science advisor, Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University in Queensland, Australia, and author of the best selling book, “Climate: the Counter Consensus” says, “Science has yet to provide unambiguous evidence that problematic, or even measurable, human-caused global warming is occurring. Consequently, any agreements—Durban, Cancun, Copenhagen or Kyoto—to reduce humanity’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are utterly futile. Governments need to recognize that the really dangerous climate hazards are natural events and change, and to prepare more fully to adapt to them when they occur.”
New Zealand-based Terry Dunleavy, ICSC founding chairman and strategic advisor, expands on this point, “The UN’s nonsensical attempts to ‘stop climate change’ have diverted world attention, and hundreds of billions of dollars, away from helping those already being hurt by natural climate variation and weather-related events. The health and wellbeing of people suffering today is infinitely more important than the remote possibility that our GHG emissions might threaten those yet to be born.”
“We urge citizens from across the political spectrum to take a more mature perspective, one that is based on real science, engineering and economics, not political correctness,” asserts ICSC energy issues advisor, Bryan Leyland of Auckland, New Zealand. “Whether you are socialist or capitalist, industrialist or environmentalist, no one wants to pour money down the drain. Yet, that is exactly what is happening as a result of the global warming scare. Expensive and ineffective alternative energy projects such as wind turbines and solar cells are receiving massive government support, in the belief that they will reduce GHG emissions which are wrongly blamed as a cause of dangerous global warming. Meanwhile, the conventional power sources that we rely on for our very survival, let alone the economic progress we need to create a better world, are deliberately starved of support. This is a very dangerous situation.”
ICSC science advisor Professor Ole Humlum, of the Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo, explains, “Today’s climate debate is essentially about the relative influence of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2) versus natural climate variations. In my mind, there is no doubt that the data available clearly show that the natural variations are the dominant of these two factors, including during the last few years. The net temperature effect of our CO2 emissions appears to be insignificant.”
Mr. Harris concluded: “As is well demonstrated by the Nongovernmental International Climate Panel on Climate Change (www.nipccreport.org), warming alarmism is a not based on a correct interpretation of the science. The climate scare has largely been fuelled by computer-generated misrepresentations that bear little relationship to modern climate or to its observed history.”
As nearly all independent observers have now concluded, a new approach is needed to address climate change. The best (indeed, self-evident) Plan B is that nations should prepare for and adapt to the onset of damaging climate-related events and change as and when they occur.
This is a media release from the ICSC.
_________________________________________________________________________
The ICSC is a non-partisan group of scientists, economists and energy and policy experts who are working to promote better understanding of climate science and related policy worldwide. We aim to help create an environment in which a more rational, open discussion about climate issues emerges, thereby moving the debate away from implementation of costly and ineffectual “climate control” measures. Instead, ICSC encourages effective planning for, and adaptation to, inevitable natural climate variability, and continuing scientific research into the causes and impacts of climate change.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Funny, I thought the boot was on the other foot but I bet the UN didn’t raise this argument at Durban:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/japanese-satellites-say-3rd-world-owes-co2-reparations-to-the-west/
I can only assume that climatic extremes have migrated to the developing world, leaving my own patch very placid and boring.
Each month, I like to drop in here and make a note of record extremes in my region for that month. Sadly, like the months before it, December has been very undistinguished in recent decades.
Our hottest December, by mean max, was in 1911. Our coolest, by mean max, was 1927. 1946 and 1927 had the highest and lowest minima, respectively. 1970 was our wettest December, 1938 was our driest. Mind you, December 1911 looks like being very cool and wet. No doubt the daily readings will stand a little smoothing and rounding.
The BOM really needs to do away with its own published records, lest skeptics in the pay of Big Carbon start to draw superficial conclusions.
And this transference of climatic extremes from the mid-coast of NSW to the developing world must be stopped…as soon as we work out how the One Percent are doing it.
The supposed mitigation of AGW must be the most stupid, clueless, costly action taken over the last one hundred years.
We can state with 100 % certainty that we can never ever fix or change the climate because simple maths dictates an entirely guaranteed outcome.
While the divergence of the developed and developing worlds co2 emissions occur at such a rate billions of dollars must be poured down the drain for a zero result.
What is it that these numbskulls can’t understand about these very simple numbers plus simple logic and reason ?
Just look at the divergence of the two largest emitters over the last 15 years and if you can’t understand the simple numbers then you are incredibly stupid and beyond all hope.
In other words you are just like Juliar and her delusional, stupid govt and supporters and you’ll probably never wake up.
Remember this isn’t the result of an opinion or point of view but just simple maths that can’t be changed or wished away. Those tens of billions must be wasted ( and have been )for a zero return.
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8&cid=CH,US,&syid=1990&eyid=2009&unit=MMTCD
Durban has been as much a waste of everything as Cancun and Copenhagen. Cohers could check me here but I think an agreement to agree in the future is a worthless contract no matter how many sign it.
Drongo, why did you have to post that info on just who is emitting all that extra CO2.
With all the recent research showing how much the increases CO2 is not only helping with plant production, but making it possible for them to be more productive with less water, I had been developing a nice little theory.
My idea was that all our CO2 was helping the third world agriculture so much, that they should be paying us for it. I thought the least they could do was pay our electricity bills for us, & perhaps subsidise our petrol a little.
Now you go & spoil the whole thing with this information that it has been the third world producing the stuff all the time.
How’s a bloke ever going to get a good con going, with all you honest people around, I ask you?
Next climate change conference the third world will be claiming we should pay for their production of the CO2 we use to produce record wheat harvests.
Next thing we’ll have the UN wanting to collect billions from us, to run their world government, opps, I mean to give to the underprivileged, in payment for that CO2.
Hasbeen,
You might need another theory is this is right! See
“Liquid CO2 On The Ocean Bottom”
at
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/liquid-co2-on-the-ocean-bottom/
Sceptical Science is such a biased blog, nevertheless they are of the opinion that the oceans have stopped warming and its the beginning of a 20 year hiatus.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Deep-Ocean-Warms-When-Global-Surface-Temperatures-Stall–.html
If 2020 is the start of the new transfer of wealth it will be global cooling on their minds.
Remember when Gore and all the other delusionists told us that we must have a binding agreement on co2 emissions by now to make sure we would SAVE the planet?
Well Durban has been a certifiable dud and we should all be rejoicing even if these dummies are hoping to crank it all up again and get a binding agreement by 2020.
Brown and the greens are dirty about the lack of an agreement from Durban so we’ve more reason to be happy with this dud outcome.
Just a pity this idiot govt has passed a co2 tax of $23 tonne to help bugger up our economy and send more of our jobs and industries overseas.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/greenpeace_is_right_and_combet_deceives_durban_was_a_dud/
Dontcha luv skippy science?
The alarmists toss a bone to the sceptics!
What odds do you give Meehl’s model’s assumptions based on Levitus’ listing of ocean temps based on acknowledged bad measuring of SSTs plus the great unknowns of deep ocean temps?
And when anyone dares to point this out they are being unscientific?
But the fun part is how anyone who does what they do can still take themselves so seriously.
Hi SD; you say:
“an agreement to agree in the future is a worthless contract no matter how many sign it.”
Any binding contract requires consideration, something of value, to be exchanged, or promised to be exchanged; so promising to do something in the future, even agree, requires something of value to be exchanged.
So, Spangles, has something of value been exchanged between the parties in Durban? Good luck with that!
Well lads, despite the bleatings of the “prestigious” International Kooky Science Kookalition led by multiple “chief science advisors” (guffaw) who know jack shit about climate it looks like all steam ahead for the Big Deal despite the political flak and choppy seas (those not showing any acceleration nor warming).
ICSC – what a Dad’s Army of codgers. Get some decent sceptics. New definition of air pollution – Monkers parachuting over SA.
The ICSC concludes with the telling punch line: “As nearly all independent observers have now concluded, a new approach is needed to address climate change”. Someone should locate those few remaining independent observers in denial over the need for a new approach and sort them out.
Luke, The time stamp of your post says it is Monday AM where you are, but here you are writing drunk already.
Wow, I want your job: Produce nothing but bullshit, start drinking Monday AM, and write gibberish.
Can I emigrate to your sunny climate doomed land?
I will even play along on the CO2, just to get along.
I would offer the first round on me, but you seem well ahead.
How ’bout the next?
Have a great one, ;^)
“So, Spangles, has something of value been exchanged between the parties in Durban? Good luck with that!”
Maybe by converting all the hot air to carbon creds it becomes water tight? ☺
Hunter, like Stan Freeburg’s Lone Psychiatrist, Luke goes skin-diving in his lunch hour and he just KNOWS it is all waiting for us in the hot ocean depths.
Well another Ian, that’s really torn it.
How on earth can a world government get the funds it needs to operate, & the third world git it’s reparations, from the bloody planet.
A pity, but the buggers may just have to start supporting themselves.
Another Ian,
I hope our luke reads that link so he can understand 1/ how cold it is down there 2/ how lots of CO2 in the ocean doesn’t seem to worry crustaceans and 3/ how it supports Plimers theory that he and his warmist mates love to ridicule.
It is all proven fraud , they should be taken to court while we can the computer code shows clearly they faked what they said they would , another fault i think is in their measurements of something they cannot even see , they say the 3% put out creates all the climate when that is just not true , they calculate 3 tons for every 1 ton of coal , however it does not increase in weight until it mixes with the nitrogen and water so in effect it is way out and what is actually produced , this can be tested by burning 1 oz of coal and capturing the c02 and weighing it , it is not 3 0z i can assure you .
Wait till all those exotic species start invading pristine environments
http://news.discovery.com/animals/king-crabs-antarctic-waters-110208.html
as they starting to do NOW !
“Wait till all those exotic species start invading pristine environments”
I dunno luke, we coped alright when you and the other exotics invaded our pristine environment.
Quite so Cohenite
In fact many exotic trees are vastly superior to what they have replaced
…I would much rather plant quercus etc than eucalyptus anyday.
Oaks produce useful timber of great strength, dont burn/explode the way eucalypts do, and are not so harsh on tthe soil, and dont make a constant mess the way eucalypts do…further they are less likely to drop branches your cruet
Whats really needed are exotics that will displace the useless exotics…..like greeny pollies!
They have figured out a way for the small countries to charge the large countries rent for the atmosphere.
It is basically a money transfer to third world despots under the guise of “climate justice” which is the latest buzzword in the “global warming” line of names.
“Wait till all those exotic species start invading pristine environments”
Ya mean our feral future?
Like lantana, NGOs and you bureaucrats on the enlarged public breast, those exotics thrive on all that extra CO2.
Sorry Cohenite, I’m not with you on this.
I can think of a lot of things one may be forgiven for calling Luke, but I don’t think exotic is one of them
Luke,
IRT exotic species invasion, I heard a rumor that cane frogs and rabbits might be invading Australia sometime.
If I recall, you all work in something to do with Australian enviro land use issues?
Why don’t you guys check around a bit, if you have sobered up yet, and let us know if that might become a problem someday.
spangled drongo,
irt bureaucrats thriving on increased CO2: rotf&lmfao!
lol, thanks,
Oh no Hasbeen is exotic, here is a photo of him stepping out in his summer gear:
http://www.theanimalfiles.com/birds/passerines/cock_of_the_rock_andean.html
Sorry hasbeen, that is a photo of luke stepping out not you; but as you can see he is exotic.
“Comment from: Luke December 12th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Wait till all those exotic species start invading pristine environments”
An acquaintance had a wonderful act built around a song that went
“It started with three
Now there’s millions on me
How I’d like to get’em with my crab lotion”
Afraid I don’t know the rest, and that will save Jen invoking censorship.
Hasbeen,
Might have to extend the new theory!
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/ocean-carbonate-from-rocks/
On the subject of the climate conference in Durban and who owes who the developing world this is worth reading…
“They want the KP (Kyoto Protocol) rules but they don’t want the KP. In Africa, if you want the mango you also must like the mango tree. If you want (the carbon dioxide) markets to continue, if you want strong and robust rules, then keep the mango tree. Dr Tosi Mpanu-Mpanu, Chair of Africa Group
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13002
So much for an ecological nous from the lads. Sigh. Isolated for millions of years and then kapow ! Zero for knowledge of the Antarctic ecosystem. And on your watch boys.
Jen, the deal [such as it is] in Durban has isolated Australia:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-plan/durban-deal-isolates-gillard/story-fn99tjf2-1226219406861
Jennifer,
This is the first time I’ve read this blog.
The post was good but the comments abysmal (along with the liquid co2 hypothesis).
Are they always so beligerent ? There is no way I pass on this article/blogsite, although I might use some of the information in it.
I try to maintain the approach of ‘soft on the person, hard on the issue’.
The issue being beligerence, it does nothing to promote cause, indeed turns people off. This seems to be endemic in climate science.
I would recommend the administrator of this site refuses to publish comments which are personally offensive etc etc – I’m sure you know the drill !
Maybe we should start lobbying members of parliament.
regards,
William Martin
I should be smiling but; while the whole world has now seen the problem, you guys still haven’t seen the light.
Btw; although the seasons seem normal again the hail is more often heavier.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/weather/weather-double-whammy/2388932.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_storms_in_Australia
Thanks for the link Ian, interesting stuff, pity it doesn’t get wider publication.
Gaven that hail story is garbage.
For years in the 50s to 70s Brisbane, we used to get hail that flattened corrugated iron on the roofs of many queenslanders. This extended the iron, which pulled the nails out & individual sheets, or many sheets would slide off the roof, or blow off in the often light winds in hail storms.
We have not had an instance of such hail in the area since, although one was reported in the Fraser coast area a couple of years ago.
Strange how some people think Canberra is the whole world, when it is not even part of the real world.
Luke,
A close reading of your fevered reference implies strongly that the crabs were there for a long time, just not very many.
As to the attribution of this to temperature change, it is notable that the author offers nothing but (extremely) dubious claims about air temps. I am certain people will be amazed to learn how air temps impact a bottom dwelling crab. The magnesium narcotic connection is interesting, but somehow this writer, like basically enviro-writers, comes across as deceptive so I think I will wait to hit my panic button about a new source of crabs for some less fevered reporting.
My bet is if they actually are invasive, they will turn out to be there by way of hitchhiking on cargo ships or in ballast of the same.
But it is interesting that in a thread aimed at discussing faux third world claims on western money to fuel kleptocracies, you choose to talk about crabs.
Does this mean you are OK with your children’s and grandchildren’s future being spent by third world thieves?
What utter stupid rubbish – “hitchhiking on ships” – cripes you’re an eco-dumb bum.
Much more than that – they’re not “invasive” – they’re extending their range based on temperature – it’s well published. e.g. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.38.091206.095525?journalCode=ecolsys
And sharks will be next.
Southern Ocean is warming at depth – the data say so. http://www.acecrc.org.au/access/repository/resource/4f15b7ba-6abc-102f-a3d0-40404adc5e91/ACE_OCEANS_POSITION_ANALYSIS_LOW_RES.pdf
Gav and Luke just seem to get wierder and sillier as time goes by. Gav thinks that Durban was somehow a success story for Juliar and the leftwing idiots and Luke wants to talk about crabs as proof of CAGW.
Funny how Labor’s coalition partner the Greens through both Brown and Milne seem to think Durban was a total failure and Luke seems to suggest that we can somehow fix the crab population somewhere by reducing our 1.3% of co2 emissions by 5% by 2020.
Funny how Gav is so optimistic about mitigating CAGW and yet the Greens and even Greenpeace don’t seem to have much to be enthusiastic about at all post Durban.
I suppose if you agree to LOOK at this delusion in another four years to perhaps do something about IT in nine years time then that’s progress as far as Gavs concerned.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/11/kumi-brings-the-good-news/#more-52832
If we accept Rintoul’s findings that the Southern Ocean is warming to a depth of four kilometers and equally agree with Tisdale that the Southern Ocean SST is waning, then it’s obvious to see regional cooling has begun.
The warmer water will sink to the deep and grow cold. The king crabs Luke mentioned may be on top at the moment, but in short time they will scurry back to warmer water.
Assuming its natural variability at work, all species on this planet are vulnerable to cyclic climate change. Adaptation is the key to survival.
Luke,
I said, “there a long time”. The article implies that they are new. You, in your Monday morning drinky-poo state, implied they are invasive. I offered a mechanism, if they are transported in, to explain it that is based on stuff like history. Sorry to bother you during your happy hour- err, work time.
Actually, I will bet if they are simply extending their range, then more than temps are involved, but then if they are extending their range, their goes the pristine blah-blah you were upchucking as well.
A big tell, btw, that this study is like so many of the other references you offer, crap, is that they don’t talk about actual temps.
But in the age of stupid, all answers are either CO2 or temperature. And Luke, you are nothing if not a man of the age.
But again, Luke,is all you have to offer when discussing how third world kleptos are going to steal more of your money is a drunken spiel on crabs population changes?
Maybe you and your gang, along with a proper adjustment for cost of living decreases, could be outsourced to Uganda as part of Australia’s desperate need to gut itself over afflunza induced guilt? Field research in back country Uganda, or even Rwanda, would be a fantastic public service. And the pay scales would be illuminating for your whole gang.
More good stuff for gullible Gav to read and from an Emeritus Prof no less.
http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/4532-philip-stott-the-basic-truth-about-durban.html
Gav, did you get your calipers out and measure that hail? And if so can you tell us the extra diameter that is applicable to ACO2 and the GHG effect?
Always allowing for natural variation, of course.
Have you noticed with hailstorms how the signal is always drowned by the noise?
A little light reading on ocean bottom temps for lukes:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/the-deep-oceans-drive-the-atmosphere/
Fantastic news that Canada will definitely be pulling out of any future Kyoto type of BS agreement.
While we’ve known for a short time that the Harper govt have grown balls and a brain and ditched this idiocy it’s still good to see this completely confirmed so soon after Durban.
This will make the majority of Aussies spit chips when they compare our delusional, barking mad idiot govt to the rational good govt of Canada.
But what a total embarrassment for Australia to be lead by such a pack of lightweight, clueless morons.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/12/kyoto-in-the-past-for-canada/#more-52927
One way to negate any such debt –
“Kyoto – in the past for Canada”
More at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/12/kyoto-in-the-past-for-canada/#more-52927
With Durban’s failure, and Kyoto officially what it always was, a dead letter, AGW now enters a zombie phase. Remember that zombies are very dangerous.
Unfortunately I believe Little Lukey may be right this time.
What have many sceptics and deniers believed about Goreball Warming for years?? That it was a SCAM to allow the construction of an Authoritarian World Gubmint around the UN unelected Fascist bureaucraps. You know, Little Lukey’s kind.
http://iceagenow.info/2011/12/climate-conference-u-s-caves-agrees-economic-suicide/
According to this article referencing an AP article, a few more pieces of the bureaucracy has been implemented in this alledgedly FAILED conference’s agreement similar to the last one… The climate crap would have sped things up if accepted, but, they continue to piece it together anyway.
Almost forgot. Hey, Little Lukey, anyone you know??
“Environmental Scientist Caught Agreeing To Ignore Her Own Data, Make Up New Claims”
http://wizbangblog.com/2011/12/12/ann-maest/
Oh boring KookyKat ! How Pavlovian.
Anyway 28,000 species all on the move from temperature
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Rosenzweig_etal_1.pdf
Corals on the move from warming oceans
ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%20Articles/Reefs%20poleward%20expansion%202011.pdf
Corals faster than birds?
“Plants and bees keep up with climate change where birds don’t?
Posted on December 12, 2011 by Anthony Watts
Readers may recall last week when I highlighted a press release that said Birds apparently can’t outfly climate change. It seemed ridiculous and there were many questionable claims in that work. Now from Cornell University we have this today:
As climate change sets in, plants and bees keep pace
ITHACA, N.Y. — No laggards, those bees and plants.
As warm temperatures due to climate change encroach winter, bees and plants keep pace.”
More at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/12/planst-and-bees-keep-up-with-climate-change-where-birds-dont/
William says this:
‘soft on the person, hard on the issue’.
Unfortunately William, in the context of AGW, the people are the issue; a cursory read of the UEA CRU emails would demonstrate that; and the behaviour and philiosophunctionalism, as Heinlein would say, of the Durbananites confirms that.
Brilliant Luke. We’ve had coral as far south as Jervis bay in the holocene.
How does that confirm man-made global warming?
Duh a duh a duh
So now it’s – well OK then it’s warming when it a widdle while ago – it wasn’t warming – bait and switch
“The Corporation is under pressure following The Mail on Sunday’s disclosure two weeks ago that senior BBC journalist Roger Harrabin accepted £15,000 in grants from the University of East Anglia, which was at the heart of the ‘Climategate’ scandal, and then reported on the story without declaring this interest to viewers. — Miles Goslett, Daily Mail, 12 December 2011”
Quite so Cohenite …the people involved in GW ARE the issue, including leading journos being paid by Universities to spread their distorted and fraulent gospels..as above.
..and then to further compound the recent evidence, we have no other than David Attenborough taking part in a very deceptive piece of BBC produced imagery in his recent show about the frozen parts.
Its not going to end just because rather naive people like William think we should all turn a blind eye to the manipulative antics of epople who have a position of public trust…or did have… until they were exposed.
And yet more evidence that it is people who are the main issue (as well as the failure of what was once trusted/respected roles of our public institutions)
http://wizbangblog.com/2011/12/12/ann-maest/
The moral inequivalence of not getting “belligerent” with these sort of academic fraudsters because its not the done thing, pales into absolute insignificance compared to the import of their behaviour.
Me thinks that Willam M is tad out touch with reality.
Luke,
Your bait and switch is like your shoes, they’re on the wrong feet!
No one is denying it is warming. I keep giving you graphs which show it. It’s just that it is not catastrophic, apocalyptic or even abnormal.
Brisbane was built on all the dead coral in Moreton Bay that was dredged by Darra Cement Co.
There’s plenty live coral still there too. Been there forever.
If there’s one thing coral loves it’s warm water.
Now wash your sheets [again] and restart your thinking process
I mean, I’m probably labouring the point but in terms of aggression all you have to do is visit our abc; this from one of my favourites hysterics:
“Zibethicus :
14 Dec 2011 8:55:26am
“Going through these comments so far, there appears to be a correlation between denial, lack of education, and aggression. It would be interersting to look at the statistical significance. I wonder if this forum existed in my uni days? Not that stats are fun, but observation of the antics that goes on here could be quite revealing.”
Permit me – /if/ permitted – to point out that extreme stupidity may be the correlating factor.
Lack of education is one thing. But the requisite information is very freely available. All one has to do is find it with a couple of clicks.
It is an act of extreme and wilful stupidity not to do so.
The deniers are simply the stupidest, as well as the most selfish and short-sighted, people in the history of the world.
Regrettably for them, this will not save them at the ecocide trials, where I predict they will also be found to be the worst criminals in the history of the world.
As Goethe said; “There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity.” There is a certain irony to this epigram becoming the epitaph of a species which called itself ‘sapiens’…”
How would you like to be stuck on a desert island with that?
‘No one is denying it is warming…’
Sir…sir!
Regional cooling has begun, so I’m denying it is warming.
Sorry EG,
I should have said that “no-one is denying that little bit of warming since the end of the LIA that the AGW profession is wetting the bed over.”
And cohers, your mate Zibethicus is bed wetter par excellance who wishes us all the same degree of kidney failure.
It would almost be worth it to be stuck on a desert island with the self-assessed clever such as Z just for the laughs.
“Regional cooling has begun, so I’m denying it is warming.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA – ah the divisions between sceptics make one laugh !
” ecocide trials” – more kookiness – Cohers is on drugs !
‘…ah the divisions between sceptics make one laugh!’
Sceptics are not the Denialati, we believe firmly that warming has stopped and the globe is now confronted by a 20 year hiatus.
Talking of hiatus, did you catch this revelation?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Deep-Ocean-Warms-When-Global-Surface-Temperatures-Stall–.html
EG,
This is a companion piece for luke’s garbage. Another vacuous exercise in modelling.
They claim fig. 1 wasn’t modelled which is right. It was mainly guessed from overboard buckets and engine intakes.
And since Argo arrived in 2003 it’s been cooling.
But at least skippy science admits that temps have stalled. They usually find it really hard to admit contrary facts yet they embrace the wild assumptions that support their beliefs.
Something strange is happening with OHC; NODC shows it spiking up:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html
At the same time SST is plunging:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003
It’s just another one of these AGW miracles; an ice-rink on top of a cauldron.
Green scientists and lawyers; the greatest stench of corruption is always from those who pretend to be the cleanest: hold your noses:
http://wizbangblog.com/2011/12/12/ann-maest/
O/T but will help froth Luke’s next coffee
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/13/the-rp-ratio/
And more science corruption in the IPCC:
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/12/ipcc-scientist-responsible-for-bogus-antarctica-warming-study-suppresses-his-critics-research.html
This was really only 3 inches per century but they reckon the land is rising 1 inch per century, so:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/12/new-study-sea-level-rose-only-4-inches.html
Cohenite would have to be having a tug http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1800
Then I read this http://www.grist.org/climate-change/2011-12-05-the-brutal-logic-of-climate-change
My graph of SST was from 2003 because the conversation was about ARGO which came in in 2003; so how can OHC be rising when the surface isn’t? The ocean doesn’t heat from the bottom?
No debt would likely mean no problem.
However, the undeveloped countries are going to be furious.
The AGW crowd has been busy convincing them that there is damages and that they should be given mountains of free money for doing nothing. These children will not be happy and, as there are a lot of them, they can make a lot of noise. Temper tantrums all around (the 3rd world).
What has happened here is a global socialist agenda has figured out a way for smaller countries to charge larger countries “rent” for the atmosphere. It isn’t even being called “climate change” anymore. Now it is called “climate justice”. This is all about a global redistribution of wealth. It is not about climate, it is about money. Remove the money parts of the deal and nobody is interested anymore.
If it was about CO2, why not have countries pledge to reduce their CO2 levels without creating a fund of billions of dollars? Because it isn’t REALLY about CO2 at all. It is about making people afraid of CO2 and using it to create a fund of billions of dollars. It is really about the dollars.
The idea is to create fear and then convince people that if they just hand over enough cash, they will make all the bad things go away. If Australia meets all of its CO2 reduction goals, it will be impossible to even measure the result in global atmospheric CO2. Not only will it go unnoticed, it will be impossible to measure because it is so tiny on the scale of global emissions. Australia will spend billions of dollars which will NOT go unnoticed. That money eventually ends up in people’s pockets.
Australia might do better to simply burn $1 bills for power. Those are made of paper and are a renewable source of energy and probably cheaper in the long run.
“Quote of the Week – what Durban is really about”
”
WUWT commenter Cal65 from Hawaii burns away all of the irrelevancy of posturing and pronouncements and gets to the core truth of what the Durban climate deal is really all about. He writes:
The UN plan will shift wealth from the first world’s poor to the third world’s rich without making any difference in climate control.
Don’t believe that? All one has to do is look at the whiny grifters known as the Maldives, who are building airports like crazy to handle the increased tourist trade…”
More at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/11/quote-of-the-week-what-durban-is-really-about/
Little Lukey,
Thanks for wasting our time with that Grist piece of fantasy. Got anything actually backed up by observation and RATIONAL thought??
Spangled, I have seen living coral at Bass Point near Jervis Bay, also off the Sunshine Coast -just not the same type as the Barrier Reef. There is a large number of different types of coral each with a different habitat range (including water temperature range ). I understand that coral reefs have been found off the Southern coast of Tasmania. I think this was shown on an ABC or SBS series. The Corals in the Coral sea in the Solomon Islands live in much higher temperatures than is ever found at the Barrier reef. Wiki is not the best reference but this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral at least shows the location of reefs in cold and warm waters. That alarmist Hough-Guldberg has been proved wrong so many times it is a wonder that he has not been sacked for incompetence.
Very interesting, cementa.
Luke’s “Red Continent” will be growing coral next if the IPCC have any say in it:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/business-as-usual/
Two years later the East Anglia constabulary to Tallbloke:
“‘Allo, ‘allo, ‘allo”!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/14/uk-police-seize-computers-of-skeptic-in-england/
More drongosim – “gee as long as something grows it’ll be OK”. Pity about the species pushed off the edge of Tassy as the current keeps warming http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-28/seaweed-advances-south/3605740
AGW is in many ways misanthropic and nihilistic.
Australi is based on managing invasive species like cattle and sheep, raising imported crops like wheats, soy and other grains, and the same holds true worldwide. Turkeys, corn, potatoes, many trees, vegetables and grains, root crops, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Yet the AGW believers and profiteers pretend that there was a pristine environment prior to the 1850’s or so.
When you boil down the narrative filler, what you are left with is a group of people who are not connected to reality, even as they sponge off of it and whose polices are designed to harm people.
If this sort of pathology was limited to Bilderberger wack jobs or UFO abductees, it would be simply funny. But they are demanding the keys to the car and access to the checkbook of policy, and demanding to take the wheel.
This despite the plain truth that not one AGW policy, treaty law, technology, or tax subsidy has made any impact on CO2 at all, not to mention the completel lack of impact on cliamte.
Take back the keys, Grab back the check book, and make these extremists hit the road.
Hunter I’m convinced that mitigation of CAGW is a total nonsense and it’s not just you, me and most of the people blogging here that understand this fact.
Simple kindy maths proves there is zero the west can do about changing the climate or reducing the temp by a jot even if we believe in AGW to the letter.
I believe that we could see an increase in warming by perhaps 1c over a period of time up to 560ppmv of co2, but I don’t believe we should be trying to mitigate this problem (?) by reducing co2 because it can’t work.
Let’s just do our best to invent new methods and technology for our future energy needs but before that time adaptation is the only method we should use.
More feeble “back of the envelope” science from Luke and our ABC.
Our east and west coast currents run warm and mostly southward so which way would seaweed mainly travel?
“Interestingly, Dr Wernberg and colleagues found a few species of seaweed, including Caulocystis uvifera, actually moved some tens of kilometres north instead of south with warming oceans.”
But during the reverse monsoon the currents also reverse. They flow against the wind.
And the temperature varies a lot depending on the direction and whether it is a la Nina or el Nino.
I really thought you had more sense than to post this sort of regularly debunked drivel.
It hasn’t been debunked you geriatric codger.
This statement is so stupid I cannot believe you made it “Our east and west coast currents run warm and mostly southward so which way would seaweed mainly travel?” If that’s your logic all species should have travelled off the end of the world a few millenia ago.
Drongoism. Pavlovian relfex to say something stupid ….
All these examples show a warming world and species distributions responding despite the bleatings of the deniers. Major shifts over decades.
A quick google proves SD is correct.
http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/AustralasianOceanCurrents.aspx
The problem is that even with Kyoto2 the targets are such that the reductions could not even be measured they are so tiny. This isn’t really about CO2, it is about money and “global redistribution of wealth” using CO2 to scare the people into doing it.
The first major problem with the AGW scam is the fact that over the past 150 years or so we have been coming out of one of the coldest periods of this interglacial, the Little Ice Age. Also note that since the late 19th century there have been three periods of warming, each one about 30 years in duration, and each one warming to about the same degree and then giving back much of that warming during an intervening cool period. Overall temperature rise from the mid 1800’s to today is fairly linear. The trend is not increasing. The late 20th century trend went flat in 1998 and has now been trending downward since 2004.
This plot will show most if it but the HadCRUT3 records only go back to 1850, the late 18th century warming started a bit before then.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2004/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2004/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1975/to:2004/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1975/to:2004/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1942/to:1975/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1942/to:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1911/to:1942/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1911/to:1942/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1879/to:1911/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1879/to:1911/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from/to:1879/plot/hadcrut3gl/from/to:1879/trend
They would tell us that the late 19th century warming and the early 20th century warming were not caused by increasing CO2 emissions because they can’t possibly be. We simply weren’t burning that much fossil fuel during that time to possibly be the case. Yet they tell us that the late 20th century warming IS caused by CO2 emissions and that is mainly for one reason:
For over 150 years there is no correlation between the rate of rise of CO2 emissions and temperature. But it just so happens that in the late 20th century rise, there is a correlation for about 30 years. Of course, CO2 emissions began to rise most dramatically in the 1960’s and temperatures didn’t really take off until the 1980s (they started to rise at around 1976 or so). But then in 1998 the rise flattened and there has been no correlation between temperatures and CO2 since.
The trend in sea level rise flattened out starting in 2004. Contrary to what we are being led to believe, sea level rise is not accelerating, it is decreasing in rate and may even be reversing and this is according to several different sources of data:
http://climate4you.com/images/UnivColorado%20MeanSeaLevelSince1992%20With1yrRunningAverage.gif
In order for there to be greenhouse warming on the surface, CO2 in the atmosphere must absorb infrared radiated from the surface. warm up, and re-radiate a portion of that infrared back to the surface. As of yesterday atmospheric temperatures at altitude were the coldest ever recorded since satellite measurements have been taken starting in 1979. The average global air temperature at 14,000 feet is -21.21 degrees C, the coldest in history and 0.1 degree colder than the previous record set in 2008. There is no atmospheric warming so there is no greenhouse radiation warming the planet.
Recently it was reported in a peer reviewed journal that the IPCC figures for climate sensitivity to CO2 were too high by at least double and possibly more. It has also now been exposed at Judith Curry’s blog that cloud feedback was intentionally misrepresented in the IPCC report, even with this misrepresentation was brought to their attention. The IPCC AR4 has been completely discredited by several scientists as have many of the underpinning peer reviewed papers which it turns out weren’t “peer reviewed” so much a “pal reviewed”.
In fact, some of the goings on with those papers are so blatant that the peers of the scientists involved wonder how the papers could have passed review in the first place. Things such as taking a time series of temperature proxy data and inverting it to show an increase when it really showed a decline is but one example. There are other examples such as “chopping off” or truncating data series when they began to diverge from the desired result, too. And finally, the granddaddy of the papers, the now completely discredited “hockey stick” paper by Dr. Michael Mann has now been shown to produce a “hockey stick” even when fed randomly generated time series data.
Ocean heat content had been rising fairly linearly in the top 700 meters of the ocean from about 1980 to about 2004. It has leveled off to a flat trend since that time.
So to recap, the late 20th century warming is turning out to be almost exactly like the late 19th century and early 20th century warming periods in both duration and rate of increase. In all probability what we are seeing is the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age.
But most importantly, none of the CO2 reductions proposed to date would make any difference. Australia’s reduction of 160 million tonnes by 2020 when compared to 2008 global emissions of 29,888,121 million tonnes amounts to a difference of only 0.0005%. It is impossible to measure a decline that small in the global atmosphere and it would be swamped anyway by increases from China, Brazil, and India in a matter of hours.
So if there is really no indication that the warming correlates with CO2 emissions and if the reduction in emissions wouldn’t even be enough to be measured in the global atmosphere, what is the point of all of this? Well, that carbon exchange means big money to a lot of people trading in carbon “credits”. And the most ironic thing of all is that the whole idea was originally put forward by Enron in the US who was the major backer of Kyoto to begin with before their swindling business practices were exposed. They were hoping to cash in big on the carbon exchanges just as they had tried to cash in on “power exchanges” and even internet “bandwidth exchanges” in the US. It is really about the creation of a new market for a company that doesn’t even exist any longer.
It has now been turned into big money for NGOs and third world despots. You are being robbed.
“This statement is so stupid I cannot believe you made it “Our east and west coast currents run warm and mostly southward so which way would seaweed mainly travel?” If that’s your logic all species should have travelled off the end of the world a few millenia ago.”
Luke, old chap, I had a yacht design busines that depended on winning ocean races mostly around our coastline and I had to make it my business to have a fair grasp of our offshore set, so I don’t have any qualms about refuting this sort of self admitted “back of the envelope” science.
Today it is very easy to track these currents but prior to GPSs you could only do it with a thermometer [usually, but not necessarily, built into the yacht’s hull] which you pay great attention to and after a while you become very aware of what a change in SSTs really means.
And these currents are generated simply by prevailing winds raising SLs along coastlines and those raised SLs being forced by gravity to seek equilibrium by running back to where they came from, generating gyres etc as they go.
But they don’t extend beyond the land mass to any great extent so your dumb extrapolations about the end of the world are exactly that.
When you get prevailing northerlies, you get a northerly set, prevailing southerlies, southerly set and when you are going in the opposite direction you have to hug the beach to avoid the current. It’s an effect that occurs in many parts of the world and is well known for distributing bottom feeders.
You need to give it more attention.
Luke,
You are the ass in this.
Species have been shifting due to humans for centuries and it has accelerated these past ~200 years.
Your linking this to CO2 is really making you look like some cargo cult aboriginal player.
In amongst climate debts – –
“Carbon price hits record low of 6.3 Euro…
The low price, 6.3 Euro, is equivalent to about $8 Australian or US.
The Australian government signed us up to pay $23A with a floor at $15 (and they think that they are creating a “free” market.)
By Thomson Reuters Point Carbon”
More at http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/carbon-price-hits-record-low-of-6-3-euro/
Luke I wondering about the unseasonal CAO impacting south-east Oz and do you have an answer?
High pressure too far south?
It might be interesting to note this article that shows that the EU carbon market is current in “free fall”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/15/eu-carbon-trading-in-freefall/
The US market has already collapsed and the exchange has been closed.
But more important to my mind is this article:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/15/to-the-guardian-you-cannot-make-good-public-policy-on-mistaken-premises/
The idea here is that each generation is more affluent than the next. Why should today’s poorer generations obliged to solve problems for more affluent generations down the road?
David Archibald found this paper and has a guest post at Watts on Polar Amplification.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3256
We can expect early 20th century weather in the coming decade.
Spangled offers some geriatric yarn of sailing days of yore versus a serious study of species change over 70 years – pullease
“he scientists examined an extensive marine database of more than 20,000 records of seaweed collected since the 1940s.
“Importantly, we did not select species based on preconceived ideas about which ones should have shifted or not. We looked at all 1500 or so species in the southern seaweed flora and analysed all of those species that had sufficient records,” Thomas said.”
Archibald – LOL ! As for Humlum – well come in spinner http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/12/curve-fitting-and-natural-cycles-the-best-part/
Very good luke; the big ‘eds at RC conclude:
“arbitrarily splitting a time series up into parts generally does not allow one to learn anything.”
Except of course when the parts correlate with otherwise verified natural events; which is what Humlum did with his hindcasting.
You can tell when the Luke gang runs out of points to make as he increases his gibberish level to pretend he is just one of the blokes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pus6XF_qh38
Keep in mind that RealClimate was created by Fenton Communications.
THIS Fenton Communications:
http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/fear_profiteers.pdf
George, a very interesting read.
Just for you Hunter here’s my latest video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmabxQzkFrw&feature=channel_video_title
Luke,
You lookin’ good man! Better than I thought you would. And that is a LOT more talent than I thought you would be able to muster. Now, that part in the alley- is that where you dig up your ideas for blogging or your work product?
lol. Can you replace your current logo with your Chooka likeness? rotfl&lmfao
Thanks for a great laugh. BTW, if you can ever get funding for some meeting in my part of the States, the first couple of rounds are on me.
You made me laugh so hard I spit my drink out through my nose.
These are my other friends http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL0PbJRc-CI&feature=relmfu
Luke,
I expected no less from a leading member of the civil service. lol
“The East Australian Current can flow at up to seven knots in places but more typically will move at two or three knots. It is portrayed in the animated film, Finding Nemo, as the fast moving marine super highway.”
This is both north and south, changing the temperature as it goes.
D’you think it could possibly move a bit of seaweed around?
changes over decades my man
No, changes over millenia. Just recordings over decades.