Slashdot Mirror
Prospects Rise For a 2015 UN Climate Deal, But Likely To Be Weak
An anonymous reader writes with news that a global climate deal seems to be on the horizon. "A global deal to combat climate change in 2015 looks more likely after promises for action by China, the United States and the European Union, but any agreement will probably be too weak to halt rising temperatures. Delegates from almost 200 nations will meet in Lima, Peru, from Dec. 1-12 to work on the accord due in Paris in a year's time, also spurred by new scientific warnings about risks of floods, heatwaves, ocean acidification and rising seas. After failure to agree a sweeping U.N. treaty at a summit in Copenhagen in 2009, the easier but less ambitious aim now is a deal made up of 'nationally determined' plans to help reverse a 45 percent rise in greenhouse gas emissions since 1990."
" too weak to halt rising temperatures."
You mean the rising temperatures that have already been halted?
Just to spite the elected officials.
The Deal will be all about redistributing wealth.
I suspect that this means that the US will trade money and aid and relaxed tariffs to countries in exchange for vague and empty promises for future control of greenhouse gases as was was done with the embarrassingly bad "agreement" with China.
The sun is the #1 driver of weather. Read the NIPCC reports at nipccreport.org
The agreement allows China to continue building coal-powered plants, expand its economy and cement its place as the world's leading polluter -- perhaps even doubling its output until 2030 or some year around that time, when China's carbon emissions are expected to peak.
At that point, the Chinese promise that they will implement some vague action plan at some vague point in the future. All we need to do is trust them. The agreement contains no binding language requiring any goals to be met.
The only way to reduce carbon emissions is to improve our technology to the point that non-emitting technologies are cheaper than emitting technologies. Electric cars, etc.
The reason politicians won't come to a meaningful agreement is because the population doesn't want it. Most people aren't willing to give up their car (or even double the price of gas) for the sake of global warming.
It would be easier to get everyone to agree to switch to nuclear energy than to agree to meaningful limits on CO2 emissions, and you should be familiar with how difficult of a political problem that is. People don't want to switch to nuclear because of.........actually I don't really know why, but even in countries that actually want to do something about CO2 (like Germany) are switching away from nuclear, so that tells you how hard the problem is.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
News Flash: the Republicans are taking control of the Senate in January.
Which is why they renamed it 'climate change', which means nothing, but is MEANT to mean 'catastrophic man-made global warming' every time they say it...
www.climatedepot.com
It would be easier to get everyone to agree to switch to nuclear energy than to agree to meaningful limits on CO2 emissions
Even though going nuclear is the only practical solution, I don't think it's any easier - you have decades of people devoted to scaring people about anything nuclear, and those groups are still around piping that tune - even to the clear detriment of the earth and environment. They just are too afraid to do anything else.
even in countries that actually want to do something about CO2 (like Germany) are switching away from nuclear, so that tells you how hard the problem is.
Exactly my point, if even GERMANS can't be rational about this there is no hope for anyone.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's all a hoax from Al Gore and those liberal institutions like the New York Times.
RUSH LIMBAUGH said that! And so did other intellectual giants of our time, including
Michelle Bachman.
Sean Hannity.
Sarah Palin.
Ted Cruz.
ALL of these internationally acclaimed experts agree on one thing ... that there is no man-made climate change! Ask any one of them!
The Guardian published this 2 years ago:
China's emissions expected to rise until 2030, despite ambitious green policies
Now, read Slate from a couple of weeks ago regarding the "great" climate deal Obama agreed to with China:
A Real Deal
The Chinese commitment is not a commitment to any specific value of emissions but rather a commitment that the country’s emissions will peak by 2030, and thereafter will not increase. The deal does not specify whether and by how much emissions will decrease after 2030, but the significance is that China is committed to get off its exponential emissions track by 2030.
Lovely. The Chinese basically agreed that yes, the Earth is already round. Obama got rolled.
ManBearPig is 'unknown'.
the United States and the European Union, dizirehberi.org but any agreement will probably be too weak to halt rising temperatures.
You guys are still promoting this warming scam? None of those "scientific" models have even come close to what has happened. ALL of their predictions have been completely wrong. Yet you still promote this nonsense.
It isn't just the right-wing media pundits who are climate deniers. Look no further than the new House Majority Leader from the great coal state of Kentucky, re-elected with money from the Koch Brothers, (who are kinda big on coal). Or the Frackin' State of Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, who disagrees with 800 actual scientists on the matter, since forever. In fact James Inhofe wrote a anti-science book, titled "The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future", and among other things he oversees the Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Grea...
http://stateimpact.npr.org/okl...
A single year does not a trend make. It's a decadal trend. Average the temperatures on a decadal basis, and you will see that there was never an abatement from warming. Furthermore, most of the heat (90+%) goes into the oceans, which makes them rise (because they expand) and the signal is much less noisy. No abatement there either. And besides, 1998 wasn't the hottest year on record -- that's is an ambiguous statement -- and it was hot because of a record El Nino. The next record El Nino will blast 1998 to bits, unless there is some mitigating circumstance such as huge volcanic eruptions in the same year. And I say all of this fully aware that you cannot possibly understand it -- being a "skeptic" and all.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
So what if we can't halt temperature rises? Maybe we should strive to just stop pollution. If it halts temperature increases, good. If it doesn't, we tried. Either way, we get clean air, water, etc.
The deal is actually the opposite. America doesn't really need to do much to meet Obama's target. The natural market-driven growth of renewables will do it, so long as the GOP doesn't play pick the winners and losers by slapping regulations. (*cough* Kansas *cough*). It may well cost the US consumer $0. China, on the other hand, is deploying huge amounts of new energy, and will fundamentally need to shift their plan in order to have emissions peak in 2030. But they want to do it anyway, since -- pollution, and they will be at the bleeding edge of renewables technology with will own carbon by 2030. Heck, wind is already price parity with coal, and solar is dropping fast. See Levelized cost of electricity by source. And I say all of this knowing that you cannot understand it, because you are a "skeptic" with the "truth". (Somehow not a contradiction -- but that's human nature for you.)
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
BEGINNING about 1,100 years ago, what is now California baked in two droughts, the first lasting 220 years and the second 140 years. Each was much more intense than the mere six-year dry spells that afflict modern California from time to time, new studies of past climates show. The findings suggest, in fact, that relatively wet periods like the 20th century have been the exception rather than the rule in California for at least the last 3,500 years, and that mega-droughts are likely to recur.
In medieval times the California droughts coincided roughly with a warmer climate in Europe, which allowed the Vikings to colonize Greenland and vineyards to grow in England, and with a severe dry period in South America, which caused the collapse of that continent's most advanced pre-Inca empire, the rich and powerful state of Tiwanaku, other recent studies have found.
Does Tiwanaku's fate await modern California?
Only true believers in a world without technological development can help California avoid its completely natural droughts now.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07...
I've never met anyone who can argue successfully against action on climate in an open debate. The whole denialist movement is merely a desperate papering over of the fact that a small number of people don't want to do anything about climate change.
Why?
Well, generally they can't even articulate that.
Very few people actually fall into this category, fewer still sincerely believe that rhetoric, the problem with dissonance is that it is hard to keep straight in your mind. So in an open debate, denialism always loses.
Not that this is a problem for politicians, they are well versed in the art of not engaging in open debate, and lie sufficiently well that they can pretend to take action, and at the same time make sure that the short term interests of their fossil fuel industry patrons are protected.
The Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
Ref. Wikipedia.org
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
This is how Congress can remove Mr. Obama from the Office of President.
The freaks are really posting today.
Doing nothing or even better consuming all fossil fuels as fast as possible is one of the best option there is at this point to ensure that future generations will live in harmony with Mother Earth.
"Outside the USA, there are grown-ups." Shocking.
I've never met anyone who can argue successfully against action on climate in an open debate.
Well, since you are being the judge of 'successful,' I'm not surprised you've never seen that. You are no different than most people in that you don't like to lose your own argument.
In the case of climate change, people and politicians are happy to help the environment. You will rarely see a politician who says he wants to hurt the environment.
It's only when you get down to specific propositions that people object. How much are you willing to help the environment? Are you willing to double the price of gas (to decrease demand)? Are you willing to significantly increase your electric bill? The answer to these for most people is no, they aren't.
But if it's just 'doing something', sure, I'm in favor of 'doing something,' as long as it doesn't negatively effect me.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So let me get this straight:
Delegates (ie, representatives and their entourages, servants, security, family, etc) from 200 nations will all be taking their private jets to a city located in a subtropical desert during the summer, where they'll sit around for a week in luxurious air conditioning discussing an agreement that they may decide to agree to a year later when they all travel by private jet to Paris to do it all over again.
And we're expected to take these people seriously when it comes to what they say concerning carbon emissions, global warming, and how to stop it? If they wanted to be taken seriously, they'd hold the meeting using Skype and live stream it for everyone to watch, but then they couldn't enjoy the luxury of emitting a hundred million tons of CO2 to have their discussion about how to emit less CO2.
What a bunch of clowns!
There will be no strong environmental law as long as American corporations have the same rights as human beings. Holy Profit trunmps the environment--and everything else.
Nuclear energy isn't "smarter" at all. In fact is one of the worst options out there.
The problem is the people in general. They do not want to be inconvenienced, burdened, overly taxed, or told they have to go without something they are already taking for granted while wealthy and rich people gets to still enjoy it. It is a step backwards in society from any rational sense of reality.
This is why the governments who are concerned should not be trying to force more expensive tech onto people, they should not be trying to tax them in hopes that someone will get fed up and create a better alternative before replacing the government and ignoring their concerns. The governments, the UN, all those concerned, should be investing in direct research to make cleaner alternatives and perhaps even cleaner fossil energy sources that are both cost competitive and safe which could be implemented by any country at little to no royalty costs. If instead of Kyoto requiring countries to tax energy use in excess of so much emissions or penalizing some countries while ignoring others (Seriously, out of 157 or so countries, only 37 had limits on carbon emissions and of those 2 had limits they would reach in the future) and instead put as much effort and attention into researching and developing energy sources that would effectively meet those goals while being cost competitive, we would likely not be talking about this right now. We would likely either realize there isn't good alternatives or be instituting them as they are more productive and profitable.
But it would seem that everything done is for some other agenda. You can see those agendas if you look around enough.
I'm in favor of 'doing something,' as long as it doesn't negatively effect me.
Burning coal is "doing something" and it is negatively impacting everyone..
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Hey, there's my daily Climate Change (TM) article. I thought you were starting to neglect your propaganda duties for a minute there.
A) A "maybe in 2030 or so" from China isn't even a shadow of a close approximation to anything leading to or vaguely reminiscent of a promise.
B) WHAT global warming? The hockey stick is proven bunkum, the ice caps are expanding, not melting, and temperatures have been stable for 20 years.
I won't (yet) say that global warming is a hoax, but the evidence for THAT being so is more conclusive by far than the evidence for global warming itself.
The good news folks is atmospheric concentration of CO2 can be highly locally variable. When driving through the Coastal Half Moon Bay agriculture district (on Highway 92 if you live nearby) I have even seen 380 ppm CO2 on my hand held CO2 meter. Yes plants do absorb CO2. Unfortunately, deforestation such as turning the Amazon rainforest into toilet paper, and huge cuttings in the Western USA not visible from the highway (but painfully intensely obvious if you take a daytime jet from SF to Seattle... get a right side rear of plane window seat) have reduced the growing plant benefits greatly.
We need to roll CO2 concentrations back to 1960 levels fast. The State of California's CO2 equivalent emissions reduction goals were a great idea. I don't have the paper at hand, but one analyst says some of the California emissions reductions are being accomplished by buying product from overseas instead of generating CO2 by making it in California.
The atmospheric CO2 concentration problem is a big problem. It's appearances are so sparse in it's manifestations that the climate change deniers and the climate change acknowledgers are not so far apart. The atmospheric CO2 concentration problem is as big as the sky. In America we have had three or four Energy Crisis events. Every single one of these Crises has caused the oil companies to do the obvious: pump more oil. Now we have the Fifth Energy Crisis - plenty of meticulously burned gasoline and now more combustion products than the atmosphere should hold. Every CO2 molecule vibrates in the infrared frequency range. It now fills the sky and blankets the earth. Every consumer desire for another tank of gasoline has been satisfied. Every person my age in America has driven 300,000 miles and generated enough CO2 to raise a 400 foot by 400 foot square column of the earth's atmosphere to 400 ppm CO2 concentration. Figure it out yourself: 22.7 mpg, gasoline weighs 7 lb per gallon, approximately 10 lb CO2 per gallon gasoline burned (ignoring the niceties of molar weights). Air weighs 14.7 lb per square inch.
The roar of denial and the greedy push to burn just a few more gigatons of coal has real economic underpinnings. Constructive reduction in CO2 emission requires programs that understand those forces. An obvious easy change is we really need to immediately jump to 50% vehicle mile reduction with ride sharing. That will make the waste of the daily commute a bit more obvious. Ride sharing will also release a huge amount of immediate cash not spent on petroleum. That cash should have multiple good uses. Provide a beefy unemployment insurance program that will support a relaxation of the transportation social need matrix. Make it economically feasible for everybody to re-employ themselves with a short commute. Provide statutory support for employee initiated job exchange. Lots and lots of people to buy a new electric car thanks to the money paid by daily commute riders.
For the anxious accountants of corporate Aamerica, we should provide a similarly beefy time value of money relief program that will support a relaxation of the return-on-investment forces that propel commerce at the outer boundary of fast.
Way to take phrases out of context.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I've never met anyone who can argue successfully against action on climate in an open debate. The whole denialist movement is merely a desperate papering over of the fact that a small number of people don't want to do
Why should we care about what you think "successful" means? Use of the term, "denialist" indicates you aren't serious about debate. But I'll put forth a serious argument in case you decide to change your mind.
I grant that there is global warming and it probably is due in large part to human activities, particularly, greenhouse gas emissions and albedo changes. But there are plenty of problems going from that to asserting that we should act on it, particularly, the recent calls for reducing human carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050.
First, the evidence for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is poor. The data sets gets really tenuous once you get further in the past than an actual temperature record (about 150 or so years ago). And actual measurement of global mean temperature is much more recent with satellite measurements. The most important parameter in climatology today, the temperature forcing of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels is unknown to at least a factor of 3 (1.5 C per to 4.5 C per is current IPCC estimate).
Second, the evidence for urgency concerning global warming is similarly poor. Extreme weather (particularly of any sort that is not a temperature high) is particularly dubious with poor statistical records of most such data past the 20th Century. Similarly, there's no evidence for a tipping point in the near future or damage from sea level rise or ocean acidification. It's all vague claims. Much is made of the increase in flood insurance claims while ignoring that most of the increase in these claims come from the US and are due to the US's very generous and cheap public flood insurance.
Third, there is a persistent bias by both scientists and policy makers towards exaggerating the effects of climate change. The numerous climate change models used over the past couple of decades have overstated global mean temperatures. Climategate showed that climatologists would have substantial disagreement over scientific issues, but hid those problems from the public. Several scientists (most notably Michael Mann) are notorious for consistently churning out poor but politically convenient research in content and timing.
A recent pause in global warming resulted in a search for the "missing" heat. Currently, that discrepancy is asserted to be heat absorbed by the oceans, but it is just as likely to have been radiated to space. Why look for the former, but not the latter?
Economic effects of AGW are consistently skewed in favor of portraying AGW as more harmful and portraying distant future costs as more harmful. Similar biases exist in policy makers, most notably the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) which has consistently exaggerated the research and pushed one particular solution: radical CO2 emissions reduction. Similarly, we have vast spending among developed world governments based on the assumption that AGW is an urgent matter.
And let us not forget the media who routinely eagerly exaggerates what claims are made.
Fourth, the economics of CO2 emission reduction is severely understated. People routinely ignore the economic impact of environmental regulations over the past few decades. That resulted in the massive movement of industry to the developing world from the regulated developed world.
The current proposals to heavily reduce CO2 emissions are at least of the same scope (due to the impact on energy production and transportation). So what makes this current proposal likely to create economic opportunity rather than a second wave of economic transfer of industry, commerce, and wealth to the developing world (and other non-complying regions)?
My view is that you need to have a better reason than some vague suspicion that AGW
What is the optimal temperature for Earth?
You simply saying that all the research into AGW is poor and that it's all spun etc. doesn't make it so. You really are a denialist, and it's tragic that you are so caught up in this game you can't even use your own brain. You are a real human being who has handed over their thought processes to others. Again - it's tragic.
I could point you to many sources which show you're wrong, but I've seen others do just that and you still come back as if those interactions never happened.
Tragic is having grown adults look at the Great Lakes freeze solid and not thaw completely until late June of this year and claim the planet is "hotter than its ever been before" despite record breaking cold. It has not been that cold since 1912.
When you can deny actual observed reality because an "authority" told you to disbelieve reality you will believe anything you are told by that authority no matter how false it is. You lose the argument by hollering "denialist" at anyone that doesn't go along with the con. If the people that hurl that phrase about were told by the same authorities that Jews were causing global warming there would be another holocaust. To save the planet, of course.
> A recent pause in global warming resulted in a search for the "missing" heat. Currently, that discrepancy is asserted to be heat absorbed by the oceans, but it is just as likely to have been radiated to space. Why look for the former, but not the latter?
Dear gods. We know the heat hasn't been radiated to space, we have satellites that measure this. While you may have some points in the rest of your text, this single failure shows you don't know the first thing about the topic.
Repeat after me: the fact that the earth is absorbing more energy than it is emitting is not something that is even the slightest bit in dispute. The only question is: where is the energy going (probably the ocean).
CO2 will continue to rise as long as we stay with per capita normalization, which is based on estimates in nations like China and India, combined with ignoring nations like China and India.
The fact is, that CO2 emissions is NOT tied to ppl, but GDP. As such, normalization needs to be based on emissions per GDP.
In addition, many nations love to cheat on information about estimates. What is needed is a single means of measuring all over the world. That is what OCO2 will bring us. It can measure CO2 flowing IN and OUT of a nation.
The best solution is for nations to put a tax on consumed goods predicated on where the parts come from and the amount of CO2 / GDP from the worst nations. In this fashion, it rewards nations that lower theirs (or stays low), while punishing those that are too high.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You simply saying that all the research into AGW is poor and that it's all spun etc. doesn't make it so.
Indeed. I've described the sort of problems (not at all a complete list I might add) that do make all that research in AGW poor. It's those problems, not my words that are at issue here.
I could point you to many sources which show you're wrong, but I've seen others do just that and you still come back as if those interactions never happened.
I require evidence not sources. So many people just don't get that dropping links is not the same thing as providing evidence. The key property of evidence is that it allows me to distinguish between hypotheses, such as between "climate change requires us to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050" and "we know which side of our bread is buttered and are presenting our research in a politically convenient light in order to preserve our funding".
This is part of the deeply unscientific rhetoric surrounding advocacy of the catastrophic AGW theory.
We know the heat hasn't been radiated to space, we have satellites that measure this.
I used to think the same until I realized the first place that people had looked for the "missing heat" was the polar regions. Why? Because it was the only surface region which wasn't covered by an extensive network of weather stations and weakly covered by satellites.
Well, these regions also happen, particularly in the Antarctic, to be places where high altitude ozone and water vapor, both significant greenhouse gases, happen to be particularly low. That means a pathway for heat to radiate to space which is not well studied.
Repeat after me: the fact that the earth is absorbing more energy than it is emitting is not something that is even the slightest bit in dispute. The only question is: where is the energy going (probably the ocean).
I wrote earlier "I grant that there is global warming" so I already agree with this assertion. It is not in dispute by me. What is in dispute by me is both the degree of warming (which seems consistently exaggerated) and what, if anything, we should do about it.
Are you serious? China agreed to "peak" in 2030 so they have gone from 1.5 Gt/yr in 1980 to 7.5 and will be around 12 and that is going to achieve what exactly? Now if you could get them to clean up all the other pollutants coming out of their plants I could live with extra CO2.
This is all based on models that have never been shown to work. They are in epic fail mode. Totally wrong assumptions and computations. GIGO.
If you want to read a great explanation of why the IPCC models are broken beyond belief there was a great article describing that and all the other problems with climate science by Dr Brown of Duke university
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/
Here is an interesting thought. We had a minor el-nino this year with warming in the north pacific so next year we are due for a la-nina. Given that we are in the negative phase of the PDO it will be a very cold year starting next fall. That is due to la-ninas being stronger and el-ninos being weaker during a negative PDO phase.
So the "Gore Effect" will be in full swing next fall and they will have their meeting in freezing temps!
So the "ice age is coming" of the 1970s becomes "global warming" in the 1980s/90s and has now morphed into "climate change" because the warming stopped 14-18 years ago. "Climate Change" is so nice because they won't have to change their scam's name every time the climate does something they don't expect .... like CHANGE! For goodness sake climate is always changing and humans for all their arrogance have very little to do with it. Urban heat island is proven and CO2 might have a 1 degree C change for each doubling.
A question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?
All 5 of the major datasets (RSS, UAH, HadCRUT4, GISS, NCDC) show no warming for between 14 and almost 18 years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.
Here are 2 predictions. First I predict that CO2 will continue to increase because China and other countries don't care about CO2. They don't even care about real pollutants much less CO2. Second I predict it will get colder over the next 20-30 years. Why?
Dr Libby in the 1970s said that "looking forward it will stay cold until the mid 80s (it did), then it will warm by about 1/4 degree F until the end of the century it did), then it gets cold". When asked how cold she was predicting a 1-2 degree F drop with an outside chance of a 3-4 degree drop.
Dr Easterbrook in 2001 said the PDO was done it's positive warm cycle and that we were in for 25-30 years of cold weather. How cold? We have his good, bad and ugly predictions based on previous negative cold phases of the PDO.
Why do I join with them and side with their predictions? While past performance is not a guarantee of future correctness it is a lot better record than the IPCC and their dozens of models of which none have been accurate. They are all based on CO2 controlling the climate and the other 2 are all cyclical natural cycles. I'll go with those who have a good track record at predicting future climate. Dr Libby is the most impressive as her prediction is 30+ years going and still accurate.
If you want to read a great explanation of why the IPCC models are broken beyond belief there was a great article describing that and all the other problems with climate science by Dr Brown of Duke university. It even includes a post he made on slashdot about it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/
Every person uses something that produces CO2. Therefore it depends on people, not GDP.
You simply saying that all the research into AGW is poor
The predictions are poor. Or do you just ignore the studies that have shown that the computer models don't match reality?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Well, since you are being the judge of 'successful,' I'm not surprised you've never seen that.
I'm using fairly standard criteria - said criteria being based your ability to provide verifiable proof of your assertions. What did you think? That mere rhetoric would convince us?
I'm using fairly standard criteria - said criteria being based your ability to provide verifiable proof of your assertions. What did you think? That mere rhetoric would convince us?
I don't think there's anything that will convince you. If someone provided proof, you would find a way to explain it away.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Well, you'll never know unless you or one of your buddies actually post some proof, some day.
Here's the real problem:
Every time someone proposes a solution to climate change, people don't want it. It's not just politicians. That was the fact that started the thread, and it still stands.
Sure, if 'do something' means turning off your lights when you leave the room, people favor it. When it comes to doubling the price of gas, people don't.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Why should we care about what you think "successful" means?
You've engaged in fallacy. Nobody cares about your feelings. If you can post proof of your numerous assertions, then post it, otherwise your assertions remain in the realm of paranoid delusion. e.g:
First, the evidence for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is poor. The data sets gets really tenuous once you get further in the past than an actual temperature record (about 150 or so years ago). And actual measurement of global mean temperature is much more recent with satellite measurements. The most important parameter in climatology today, the temperature forcing of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels is unknown to at least a factor of 3 (1.5 C per to 4.5 C per is current IPCC estimate).
So essentially you are saying that in fact, the situation could be MUCH WORSE than what is predicted by current models. And this would motivate us to not take action on climate change why?