Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

[litesong]

Pachelbel wrote:

<quoted text>
More likely because the author is a well respected "opinion" writer. His strength is in gathering facts, analyzing them and then forming an opinion........

Gathering 'facts' from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is rank, smelly, & non-science. Full of business bias & energy company eagerness to sway people, NIPCC has no power to change AGW theory. Specifically constructed to oppose IPCC, NIPCC has Singer & bunches of other deniers.

Scientific American says about the NIPCC:

Then there's the Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). These 23 individuals from 15 countries, including a handful of scientists, disagree. Led by physicist S. Fred Singer—best known for his denial of the dangers of secondhand smoke—they argue the reverse: "Natural causes are very likely to be the dominant cause" of climate change.

Yes, NIPCC, constructed to oppose IPCC, was built right..........straight down so it can't see anything but money.

[Jeffery Wright]

Green jobs, eh?

Snouts in the Carbon Trough

Mr Rudd accuses opponents of his Ration-N-Tax Scheme of “bowing to vested interests”

That is the pot calling the kettle black.

The biggest vested interest is the ALP itself, hoping to harvest Green preference votes from their green posturing.

Supporting the alarmists are the gaggle of green industries already reaping dividends from the Rudd subsidies and market protection rackets.

Mr Rudd also tells us that his big business mates want the “certainty” of Emissions Trading.

A roll call of these people reveals domination by big firms of auditors and accountants, bankers and brokers, speculators and solicitors, touts and traders - all longing to get into the biggest trading lottery the world has ever seen - more snouts in the carbon trough.

The rest of big business merely wants the “certainty” of free emission permits or other special exemptions denied to Joe the Plumber and Fred the Farmer.

Sceptics on the other hand do not have a mercenary army of academics, bureaucrats and publicists who can be bribed or bullied to produce scary climate forecasts or doomsdays ads on demand.

Nor do sceptics have the power to silence or sack dissidents in their ranks.

Nor do they have the pulpits and power of the UN which, having failed at “peace keeping”, sees “climate control” as its new business model.

The climate realists have only one big vested interest – the desire to live their lives free from the “certainty” of new taxes on everything they buy and new controls on everything they do.

This is not about global pollution or global warming – it is about global energy taxes, global government and global redistribution.

(The Australian, 6/11/09)

[Pachelbel]

Hand of God wrote:

<quoted text>

Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

Brignell's law of scientific equilibrium
If it is settled it is not science.
If it is science it is not settled.

[Pachelbel]

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
Gathering 'facts' from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is rank, smelly, & non-science. Full of business bias & energy company eagerness to sway people, NIPCC has no power to change AGW theory. Specifically constructed to oppose IPCC, NIPCC has Singer & bunches of other deniers.
Scientific American says about the NIPCC:
Then there's the Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). These 23 individuals from 15 countries, including a handful of scientists, disagree. Led by physicist S. Fred Singer—best known for his denial of the dangers of secondhand smoke—they argue the reverse: "Natural causes are very likely to be the dominant cause" of climate change.
Yes, NIPCC, constructed to oppose IPCC, was built right..........straight down so it can't see anything but money.

If you read his bio you would realize he is well qualified to discern fine distinctions of opposing positions. For all your attack on skeptic scientists, organizations, and commentators you have refuted NOTHING.

[Pachelbel]

Hand of God wrote:

Increasing weather losses: proof of climate change

Increasing weather losses: proof of higher property values and concentration. Weather is NOT proof of climate change as the warmers have told us time and again. It is merely noise. Is that page missing from your playbook?

[litesong]

Pachelbel wrote:

......you have refuted NOTHING.

The NIPCC refutes itself as a scientific institution. Packed only with deniers, the NIPCC's only reason for existence was to oppose IPCC. Thus constructed, NIPCC breakes its first words that it provides science without bias.

'The present report of the Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
......is an independent examination
of the evidence available in the published,
peer-reviewed literature – examined without bias
and selectivity.'

Backed by Heartland, NIPCC......must be biased & not science.

[Pachelbel]

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
The NIPCC refutes itself as a scientific institution. Packed only with deniers, the NIPCC's only reason for existence was to oppose IPCC. Thus constructed, NIPCC breakes its first words that it provides science without bias.
'The present report of the Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
......is an independent examination
of the evidence available in the published,
peer-reviewed literature – examined without bias
and selectivity.'
Backed by Heartland, NIPCC......must be biased & not science.

Once again, we know your bias. You have revealed no new information. That it became necessary for those critical of the IPCC exclusionary process and findings to come together to summarize "the rest of the story" speaks volumes about the current state of scientific "independence".

[Earthling]

Hand of God wrote:

LMAO do you denie the link is factual.

Factual? How do you know it's factual?

Hand of God wrote:

Only the skeptics are guilty of scaremongering bits and out right lying.

And you know that because?

NB: I now understand why you copy/paste 99% of your material, because you have no personal thoughts on the subject and you're illiterate.

[I Am DigitaP]

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
The NIPCC refutes itself as a scientific institution. Packed only with deniers, the NIPCC's only reason for existence was to oppose IPCC. Thus constructed, NIPCC breakes its first words that it provides science without bias.
'The present report of the Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
......is an independent examination
of the evidence available in the published,
peer-reviewed literature – examined without bias
and selectivity.'
Backed by Heartland, NIPCC......must be biased & not science.

"Racial biology

Svante Arrhenius was also actively engaged in the process leading to the creation in 1922 of The State Institute for Racial Biology in Uppsala, Sweden, which had originally been planned as a Nobel Institute. Arrhenius was a member of the institute's board, as he had been in The Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene (Eugenics), founded in 1909. Swedish racial biology was world-leading at this time, and the results formed the scientific basis for the Compulsory sterilization program in Sweden, as well as inspiring the Nazi eugenics in Germany."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

Must be SCIENCE!

Cause HE HAD a NOBEL! Says so right here in Moonbat Institute of Science & Religion, same page as that OTHER "Science"

"About 1900, Arrehenius became involved in setting up the Nobel Institutes and the Nobel Prizes. He was elected a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1901. For the rest of his life, he would be a member of the Nobel Committee on Physics and a de facto member of the Nobel Committee on Chemistry. He used his positions to arrange prizes for his friends (Jacobus van't Hoff, Wilhelm Ostwald, Theodore Richards) and to attempt to deny them to his enemies (Paul Ehrlich, Walther Nernst)."

Genocidal Criminopath, disciples, water boys, end of the world "science" with no detectable mechanism of action:

D.E.N.I.E.D.

Constant attempts at "causation really IS direct function of correlation, THIS time:

D.E.N.I.E.D.

Mannian Fisiks:

D.E.N.I.E.D.

Mannian Statistics:

D.E.N.I.E.D.

Wacky "why show you, you'll just pick it apart to find out if I'm telling the truth" F.R.A.U.D.S like Jones

D.E.N.I.E.D.

Wacky JimboJumbles Hansen:

D.E.N.I.E.D.

[I Am DigitaP]

Wacky Cabinet meetings underwater:

D.E.N.I.E.D.

[RayOne]

If, the site of Al Gore's automobile assembly factory is threatened by glacial melting and needs a bailout, and he comes back to Congress for cash.
The circle is complete.

[cricket]

Where "Global Warming" and "Peak Oil" Meet

"Human Caused Climate Change" is a financial scam, so is the "Peak Oil" paradigm of catastrophic energy shortages in the near future.

The theory of "Catastrophic Human Caused Global Warming" neither originated from a large group of scientists nor from environmental grass-roots organizations. Instead it was a long discarded 19th century hypothesis, which was taken out of the dustbin and then proposed by the 1979 British UN Ambassador.

While the myth of "Global Warming" is used to create new revenues for the financial elites, the myth of a limited supply of "fossil fuels" had been used for creating large profits in the past.

..We once again have to look at the money trail to explain the reasons for this:
Goldman Sachs has recently bought pieces of two carbon-offset companies, in the latest sign of investment banks’ interest in the area......"

http://alethonews.blogspot.com/2009/11/where-...

Banksters Mantra:

Money, get away
Get a good job with more pay and your O.K.
Money it's a gas
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash
New car, caviar, four star daydream,
Think I'll buy me a football team
Money get back
I'm all right Jack keep your hands off my stack.
Money it's a hit
Don't give me that do goody good bullshit
I'm in the hi-fidelity first class traveling set
And I think I need a Lear jet
Money it's a crime
Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie
Money so they say
Is the root of all evil today
But if you ask for a rise it's no surprise that they're giving none away
-Pink Floyd

[Hand of God]

Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblowerExclusive: Watchdog's estimates of reserves inflated says top official

The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.

The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.

The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow – which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/audio/2009...

In particular they question the prediction in the last World Economic Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oil production can be raised from its current level of 83m barrels a day to 105m barrels. External critics have frequently argued that this cannot be substantiated by firm evidence and say the world has already passed its peak in oil production.

Now the "peak oil" theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. "The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.

"Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources," he added.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...

[Hand of God]

Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblowerExclusive: Watchdog's estimates of reserves inflated says top official

A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was "imperative not to anger the Americans" but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. "We have [already] entered the 'peak oil' zone. I think that the situation is really bad," he added.

The IEA acknowledges the importance of its own figures, boasting on its website: "The IEA governments and industry from all across the globe have come to rely on the World Energy Outlook to provide a consistent basis on which they can formulate policies and design business plans."

The British government, among others, always uses the IEA statistics rather than any of its own to argue that there is little threat to long-term oil supplies.

The IEA said tonight that peak oil critics had often wrongly questioned the accuracy of its figures. A spokesman said it was unable to comment ahead of the 2009 report being released tomorrow.

John Hemming, the MP who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on peak oil and gas, said the revelations confirmed his suspicions that the IEA underplayed how quickly the world was running out and this had profound implications for British government energy policy.

He said he had also been contacted by some IEA officials unhappy with its lack of independent scepticism over predictions. "Reliance on IEA reports has been used to justify claims that oil and gas supplies will not peak before 2030. It is clear now that this will not be the case and the IEA figures cannot be relied on," said Hemming.

"This all gives an importance to the Copenhagen [climate change] talks and an urgent need for the UK to move faster towards a more sustainable [lower carbon] economy if it is to avoid severe economic dislocation," he added.

The IEA was established in 1974 after the oil crisis in an attempt to try to safeguard energy supplies to the west. The World Energy Outlook is produced annually under the control of the IEA's chief economist, Fatih Birol, who has defended the projections from earlier outside attack. Peak oil critics have often questioned the IEA figures.

But now IEA sources who have contacted the Guardian say that Birol has increasingly been facing questions about the figures inside the organisation.

Matt Simmons, a respected oil industry expert, has long questioned the decline rates and oil statistics provided by Saudi Arabia on its own fields. He has raised questions about whether peak oil is much closer than many have accepted.

A report by the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) last month said worldwide production of conventionally extracted oil could "peak" and go into terminal decline before 2020 – but that the government was not facing up to the risk. Steve Sorrell, chief author of the report, said forecasts suggesting oil production will not peak before 2030 were "at best optimistic and at worst implausible".

But as far back as 2004 there have been people making similar warnings. Colin Campbell, a former executive with Total of France told a conference: "If the real [oil reserve] figures were to come out there would be panic on the stock markets … in the end that would suit no one."

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...

[Hand of God]

Major Asian cities face climate disaster

Low-lying and impoverished Asian coastal cities such as Dhaka, Manila and Jakarta are vulnerable to "brutal" damage from climate change without global action, environmental group WWF warned Thursday.

Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions must be curtailed in "mega-cities" where global warming will affect everything from national security to health and water availability, the influential campaign group said.

"Climate change is already shattering cities across developing Asia and will be even more brutal in the future," said Kim Carstensen, head of the WWF Global Climate Initiative.

Including their suburbs, Dhaka, Manila and Jakarta now have a combined population of about 49 million, according to WWF.

It said better-off cities such as Shanghai, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore also faced varying degrees of risk from climate change, such as rising sea levels, excessive rain, flooding and heatwaves.

Hong Kong could see dramatically fewer cold days per year while dengue fever appears to be spreading to previously unaffected parts of Singapore, it noted.

"Asia is the most populous and arguably the most vulnerable continent in the world because of the high risk of climate impacts and relatively low adaptive capacity," the report said.

"Unfortunately, the full extent of climate change has likely not been fully realised," it said, noting that temperatures in Asia have risen by one to three degrees Centigrade (two to five degrees Fahrenheit) in the last 100 years.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...

[Hand of God]

Major Asian cities face climate disaster

WWF issued its report to coincide with a weekend summit here to be attended by US President Barack Obama, Chinese President Hu Jintao and other Asia-Pacific leaders.

The summit takes place three weeks before crucial talks on a new world climate pact open in Copenhagen on December 7.

WWF said that on a "vulnerability" scale going up to 10, Dhaka rated nine points, and Manila and Jakarta eight each.

Calcutta and Phnom Penh received scores of seven each on the WWF danger scale, Ho Chi Minh City and Shanghai six each, Bangkok five, and Kuala Lumpur, Hong Kong and Singapore four each.

Poorer Asian nations urgently need financial, technological and training support from industrialised countries to save lives, protect national assets and preserve the cities' economic contributions, it said.

Mark Dia, the Manila-based deputy campaign director for Greenpeace in Southeast Asia, told AFP that the report showed "disaster management should be top of the agenda for the government."

Tropical storm Ketsana dumped record amounts of rainfall over the Philippine capital in September, leaving more than 400 people dead and vast swathes of the city flooded for weeks.

WWF urged the leaders of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum to use their summit to promote strategies to reduce carbon emissions across the 21-member organisation.

In a communique to be issued at the end of their annual meeting Sunday, the APEC leaders are expected to call for sweeping emissions cuts and declare their support for a global deal at next month's Copenhagen climate gathering.

In the short term, APEC will seek to open up trade in environmental goods and services, known as green technology, as part of efforts to fight climate change and achieve sustainable economic growth.

The December 7-18 Copenhagen talks are aimed at achieving a global deal to slash greenhouse gas emissions and ease the impact of climate change before the 2012 expiry of the Kyoto Protocol, which excludes the United States.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...

[cricket]

Hand of God wrote:

Poorer Asian nations urgently need financial, technological and training support from industrialised countries to save lives, protect national assets and preserve the cities' economic contributions, it said.

Well, there is always the motherland to look to for help and their share of the financial pie - China.

Oh, China won't help them "protect national assets"? Or "preserve cities economic contributions"?

What a crock of double speak and bullshit.

[Hand of God]

Warming drives off Cape Cod's namesake, other fish

PORTLAND, Maine – Fishermen have known for years that they've had to steam farther and farther from shore to find the cod, haddock and winter flounder that typically fill dinner plates in New England.

A new federal study documenting the warming waters of the North Atlantic confirms that they're right — and that the typical meal could eventually change to the Atlantic croaker, red hake and summer flounder normally found to the south.

"Fishermen are businessmen, so if they have to go farther and deeper to catch the fish that we like to eat, eventually it won't be economical to do that," said Janet Nye, a fishery biologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the lead author of the study.

"It just won't be in your local seafood store, or maybe it'll be more expensive," said Nye, who works at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center in Woods Hole, Mass. "So I think there'll be a natural, hopefully slow, switch to different seafoods."

For the study, which first appeared Oct. 30 in the journal Marine Ecology Progress Series, Nye and three other NOAA biologists analyzed water temperature trends from North Carolina to the Canadian border off Maine from 1968 to 2007. They then looked at fish survey data collected each spring and assessed where the fish were caught and how abundant they were.

The researchers looked at the familiar New England species. as well as lesser-known fish such as longhorn sculpin and blackbelly rosefish.

Of the 36 stocks studied, the distribution range of 24 of them had changed in unison with the rising water temperatures that have been occurring off the Northeast since the 1970s.

That temperature rise doesn't sound like much — less than half a degree Fahrenheit, on average — but it's been enough to cause fish to slowly move to areas with temperatures more to their liking.

The greatest movement was exhibited by the blackbelly rosefish, which moved more than 200 miles to the northeast during the years studied. Among commercial species, movements of more than 100 miles were observed for southern stocks of yellowtail flounder and red hake, as well as American shad and alewives.

Some fish exhibited little movement to the north, but rather moved to deeper waters where temperatures are lower, according to the report.

Small-boat fishermen on Cape Cod caught most of their haddock and flounder, as well as the peninsula's namesake fish, in waters close to shore 20 years ago, said Tom Dempsey, of the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association. Nowadays, they have to travel as far 100 miles offshore to find those same fish, he said.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...

[Hand of God]

Warming drives off Cape Cod's namesake, other fish

At the same time, he said, Massachusetts fishermen are catching more fish traditionally found in the Middle Atlantic — Atlantic croaker, in particular, usually caught off Virginia and North Carolina.

"How much of that is directly impacted by climate change is hard to get a handle on," Dempsey said. "There are a number of other factors that have been at play, one being overharvesting in inshore areas and, subsequently, ecological changes as inshore areas have become dominated in a lot of areas by spiny dogfish populations."

The study is one piece of the puzzle in figuring out the factors that influence ocean species, said Jason Link, a NOAA fisheries biologist and a co-author of the study. While the report says climate change is the driving factor, he said, other influences — such as fishing pressure and long-term natural cycles in ocean temperatures and atmospheric conditions — play a role.

"We're looking at how much of this movement to colder waters is perhaps related to the environment as opposed to how much is due to fishing," he said. "I don't think this paper totally answers that question."

While the report documents the movement of fish in the Northeast and the Middle Atlantic, there's evidence to suggest that marine organisms in southern U.S. waters are also moving north, said Jay Odell, a marine specialist with The Nature Conservancy in Richmond, Va.

Sea turtles that normally nest on beaches in North Carolina and south have been nesting in Virginia and Maryland in recent years, he said, possibly because of rising water temperatures.

"One of the messages of this paper is that tracking why some fish are doing well and some aren't, and why fish are moving, is a very complicated business," Odell said.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...

[Mothra]

JRS wrote:

Hand of god says:(gods of his own making)
"it's bad, it's real bad and going to be really really bad"
==
Where have we heard that before? Hmmm..
"To capture the public imagination,
we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
make simplified dramatic statements
and little mention of any doubts one might have.
Each of us has to decide the right balance
between being effective, and being honest."
- Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider
( in interview for "Discover" magagzine, Oct 1989)
http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm
==
Earth Day 1970 provoked a torrent of apocalyptic predictions.
"We have about five more years at the outside to do something,"
ecologist Kenneth Watt declared to a Swarthmore College audience on April 19, 1970.
Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that "civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind."
"We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation," wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.
The day after Earth Day, even the staid New York Times editorial page warned,
"Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction." Very Apocalypse Now.
Three decades later, of course, the world hasn't come to an end; if anything, the planet's ecological future has never looked so promising. With half a billion people suiting up around the globe for Earth Day 2000,
now is a good time to look back on the predictions made at the first Earth Day and see how they've held up and what we can learn from them.
The short answer: The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong.
http://reason.com/archives/2000/05/01/earth-d...

Good point.

As Copenhagen gets closer, look for ever more strident and extreme 'news' stories.