At last a voice of sanity on Climate Change. Whilst the content of this article is discussing local conditions it has a message for the climate change debate everywhere. We are focusing our efforts on the wrong objectives
More storms on the way unless we learn to manage the land (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/more-storms-on-the-way-unless-we-learn-to-manage-the-land-20120101-1ph66.html)
For those who don't have any efforts this debate is irrelevant and an annoyance, I know, but don't forget what we do today, you will do tomorrow. And by the way, you are just as affected by the southern oscillation as we are

I don't hear him saying that global warming is a con, but that he thinks landscaping is more immediate, and there are cons designed to cash in on all commercial Green Thingies.
A very slight increase of temperature from west to east in the US has meant the rapid demise of the northern white pine, a tree that always lived for a few hundred years without much threat. A bug now thrives and moves in, chomp.
There is a very real consequence of global warming visible from satellites: lack of mountain snow, river water for at least half the world. They will die of thirst and disease from standing water long before Water World hits.

I don't hear him saying that global warming is a con, but that he thinks landscaping is more immediate, and there are cons designed to cash in on all commercial Green Thingies.
A very slight increase of temperature from west to east in the US has meant the rapid demise of the northern white pine, a tree that always lived for a few hundred years without much threat. A bug now thrives and moves in, chomp.
There is a very real consequence of global warming visible from satellites: lack of mountain snow, river water for at least half the world. They will die of thirst and disease from standing water long before Water World hits.

He actually said the global warming industry is a con. What he means of course is the market based approach will only do what it can make a profit out of. Global warming was invented by British PM Margaret Thatcher as a ploy to get nuclear reactors built and so was a political con from the start. Obviously the environmentalists thought it was a great idea and so we have had thirty years of debate which as gotten us exactly nowhere.

Have you though that the pine trees might actually be dying because someone cut down the vast forests and turned them into agricultural land and not because of the universal excuse Global Warming or ACC. The loss of forestation world wide in the past two centuries of industralisation and population growth is what has contributed to the change, not only has CO2 output increased but CO2 locked up for centuries has been realised. A statistic being quoted by some enterprising advertiser locally suggests that it takes 549,000 new rees to replace one mature tree in absorbing CO2. While I think the case to be a little overstated, there can be no doubt that the major contributor to rising CO2 is deforestation and reforestation is the one positive method we have for controlling omissions

have you though that the pine trees might actually be dying because someone cut down the vast forests and turned them into agricultural land and not because of the universal excuse Global Warming or ACC.

Deforestation may be a fact elsewhere. But in the US we have grown our forests lands. This makes us a carbon sink with a caveat. We do not do effective forest management . As the trees age they add to the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That brings us back to effective forest management which includes controlled logging and managed burns.

Perhaps if there was some forest thinning then the beetles wouldn't thrive . In a perfect world they feed on older and weaker trees and not on healthy and young. But we don't allow forest thinning these days.

I'm not disputing the contention that climate changes are a factor in the growth of the beetle population . My opinion is that it is still an open question if there is significant human causation. Climate change has happened throughout global history ;with fluctuations between ice ages and thaws . Human history is only a blip on this timeline so we tend to view it from a very small prism.

I completely agree with Peter Andrews . I would say without reservations that the biggest reason for the flooding we have seen this year in the North East was landscaping without mitigation measures like retention ponds for run off . There is no place for the water to go . Street drains flow into rivers instead of replenishing ground water . Just in my neighborhood alone the building of a couple extra homes on the block without proper planning for the runoff causes floods on properties downhill.

I don't see why warming and landscape mismanagement are mutually exclusive. I don't see a need to ditch one argument for the other. I still think half the human populations is going to die of thirst before any other major change kills them off. Snow cap pictures from space don't lie and are so direct. And they have nothing to do with where we are in the ice age.

Of course the size of glaciers depend on where we are in the ice age. The last one of any note ,the "Little Ice Age" advanced glaciers by 1 to 2 kilometers in the Rockies, damaging trees ,many of which are still alive providing vivid evidence of the advance. If they advance during cool cycles then why wouldn't they retreat during warming ?

We are getting off subject which is that what we have now, the selling of the green industries is a gaint con

I still think half the human populations is going to die of thirst before any other major change kills them off.

I don't think so . But I do think that population control efforts worldwide will severely impact the human population. Here in the US alone we wacked almost 330,000 babies just in Planned Parenthood last year (not to mention the number of pregnencies ended by them utilizing the so called 'Morning After Pill". )

We are getting off subject which is that what we have now, the selling of the green industries is a gaint con

Of course it is . The conspiracy began with the AGW scientists acting as pointmen in the scam.

Here is some recent testimony from University of Ottawa Professor of Earth Sciences Dr. Ian Clark to the Canadian Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources :
We have not really seen any global warming for the past 10 years. … This is in stark contrast with the IPCC forecast of an increase of some 0.2 degrees per decade.

Clark explained that 20th century warming is merely one of a series of warm periods in the last 10,000 years. During these intervals, carbon dioxide was relatively steady.

Clark said that in the last 500 million years there was no correlation between temperature and CO2. He explained that water vapor is in fact responsible for the majority of the greenhouse effect. Clark also promoted the theory that the Sun, not CO2, is driving climate change.

Jan Veizer ,Distinguished professor Earth Sciences ,also spoke at the hearing .
He said ,Many people think the science of climate change is settled. It is not. … [The Sun] drives the water cycle; the water cycle then generates climate, and climate decides how much jungle, how much tundra and so on we will have, and therefore drives around the carbon cycle. … The sun also warms the oceans that emit CO2 into the atmosphere. Atmospheric CO2 is thus the product and not the cause of the climate.

Guelph University Professor of Economics Dr. Ross McKitrick got to the heart of the matter .
The so-called Climategate emails confirmed the reality of bias and cronyism in the IPCC process. … IPCC Assessments are guaranteed merely to repeat and reinforce a set of foregone conclusions that make up the party line.

Climate realists testify before the Canadian Senate - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW19pPFfIyg&feature=related)

The whole premise is a fraud ,and politicians looking to exploit it for what it's worth have combined their private investments with making public policy based on the fraud .

Clark said that in the last 500 million years there was no correlation between temperature and CO2. He explained that water vapor is in fact responsible for the majority of the greenhouse effect. Clark also promoted the theory that the Sun, not CO2, is driving climate change.




Interesting. So there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature?
I would have thought that was obvious. It would be very difficult, if not impossible to establish any sort of casual relationship in such a complex and interconnected system as our climate. Yet, within this complex system he finds some sort of direct relationship between the sun and climate change.

Quite rightly, having dismissed Co2 and climate change as a suspect casual relationship he then proceeds to promote his own spurious relationship.





Jan Veizer ,Distinguished professor Earth Sciences ,also spoke at the hearing .
He said ,Many people think the science of climate change is settled. It is not. … [The Sun] drives the water cycle; the water cycle then generates climate, and climate decides how much jungle, how much tundra and so on we will have, and therefore drives around the carbon cycle. … The sun also warms the oceans that emit CO2 into the atmosphere. Atmospheric CO2 is thus the product and not the cause of the climate.




"Atmospheric CO2 is thus the product and not the cause of climate change' . Similar argument similar criticism from me.

It is probably true that water vapor is far more responsible for climate change than CO2. But it is impossible to claim that the Sun is the cause of all change. Co2 may well be causing an increase in water vapor. On that basis CO2 would then count as an indirect casual relationship towards climate change. No one can rule out that possibility.

These scientists point out spurious relationships established by the pro- climate change scientists but then come up with their own claim to knowledge of casual relationships.

Tut

These scientists point out spurious relationships established by the pro- climate change scientists but then come up with their own claim to knowledge of casual relationships.

Tut

I think all we can truly say is the science is far from settled. What we have are general indications that there might be relationships. I would like to know, outside the poles, where this place is that is showing consistently rising temperatures, because it certainly isn't here. But the science surrounding the renewables industries is even more open. We went a little mad here a couple of years ago and subsidised solar installations, what we are now being told is that recent rises in electricity pricing are the result of the feeding tarriffs established then. So once again the climate change debate has shot us in the foot and we are being forced to pay for implementation of Green policy, heaven help us when the impact of the carbon tax hits home

I would say that there is more 'science 'supporting their hypothesis, That being said... I heard not one of them make the claim that their hypothesis closes the book on the science ,that the science is "settled " ; and that public policy should be made based on their conclusions.

I would say that their is more 'science 'supporting their hypothesis, That being said ...I heard not one of them make the claim that their hypothesis closes the book on the science ,that the science is "settled " ; and that public policy should be made based on their conclusions.

Tom you know these concerned scientists have been calling for action. What action short of dismantling our civilisation I am unsure about. Even if we stop all CO2 production immediately, the rise in temperature is predicted to continue for a century. Public policy has been made based on their conclusions in a number of places, and even in a place like the USA which ignores the world agreements there are policies which respond to the hypothesis. I am reminded of the Scripture which says the fool says eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die

I think we have done very well staving off another ice age and our efforts may well be rewarded

I would say that their is more 'science 'supporting their hypothesis, That being said ...I heard not one of them make the claim that their hypothesis closes the book on the science ,that the science is "settled " ; and that public policy should be made based on their conclusions.

Hi Tom,

Again, I think it is extremely difficult to establish the science on both sides of the debate. Humans are probably having some type of impact on climate.

The point I was making is that you can't use specious causation to beat pro- climate scientists over the head and then proceed to set up your own spurious relationship.

I would say the politics is settled not the science.


Tut

Yes Tut the true believers are worshiping at the altar. They will sacrifice whole economies before they are checked.

And the politics is backed with a hypothesis that is supported with ,what the Climategate emails prove, is fraudulent and manipulated data.
No one has challenged the data of those who theorize solar activity (sun spot maximums and minimums ),watervapor being the primary greenhouse gas resposible , oceanic occilations ,or even normal cycles of warming and cooling as the causes of climate change.

and the politics is backed with a hypothesis that is supported with ,what the Climategate emails prove, is fraudulent and manipulated data.




Well, that's the nature of politics. The anti-climate change lobby needs to exploit the politics as well.





No one has challenged the data of those who theorize solar activity (sun spot maximums and minimums ),watervapor being the primary greenhouse gas resposible , oceanic occilations ,or even normal cycles of warming and cooling as the causes of climate change.



I would say that no one has challenged the data because there is a realization that these natural occurrences obviously account for climate change in the short term.

The issue is long term climate change as in a steady increase in CO2 over a few hundred years. The occurrences you mention only account for short term changes. Keeping in mind I am talking in relative terms.

Tut

But that isn't the argument... AGW advocates say that this is a direct result of human caused CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution.(the Mann hockey stick graph)
The AGW group could only make this case when they leveled out the data on the graph to make it appear that the Medieval Warming period did not happen .
During this period glaciers were much smaller than today and human populations thrived in areas that are glacier covered today. (proof of this is the vegitation that has been uncovered since new glacier retreat date back to the Middle Ages... and Viking burial grounds have been found beneath the perma-frost) .

But that isn't the argument ... AGW advocates say that this is a direct result of human caused CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution.(the Mann hockey stick graph)
The AGW group could only make this case when they leveled out the data on the graph to make it appear that the Medieval Warming period did not happen .
During this period glaciers were much smaller than today and human populations thrived in areas that are glacier covered today. (proof of this is the vegitation that has been uncovered since new glacier retreat date back to the Middle Ages...and Viking burial grounds have been found beneath the perma-frost) .


Hi Tom,

So you are saying that because there were other 'natural' periods of warming in earth's past this warming period must also be the result of 'natural' processes and NOT Co2 emissions?

I would think this claim would be extraordinarily difficult to prove. I'm not saying it is wrong just difficult to prove. As I said short term explanations for climate change, e.g. sun spots etc would not be of any help here.

Tut

Why do we have to prove the negative. Simple observation tells us that CO2 isn't the only factor

why do we have to prove the negative. simple observation tells us that CO2 isn't the only factor

Hi Clete.

Normally not. The burden of proof usually resides with the person(s) making the claim.

Under some limited circumstances it is possible to go some way to proving a negative though a null-hypothesis. In this case absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

This relates to Tom's post whereby the cites; Canadian Standing Committee on Energy. From what I have read it seems as though these scientists are claiming there are no unknown process at work causing climate change (notably CO2). They seem to be claiming that climate change can be explained in terms of natural climatic processes.

In order to prove a negative you would need to look at all of the available data ( including proxy data) and detect some type of trend towards higher temperatures as time goes on. If no such trend can be discovered then you would probably say that increased amounts of Co2 plays no part in climate change or global warming.

The weakness of this position is that we cannot claim this with any significant degree of certainty.

Tut

The weakness of this position is that we cannot claim this with any significant degree of certainty.

Tut

The weakness is Tut that claims are being made that CO2 is affecting climate with statistics that represent a very small sample and an impossibally short observation period. Someone has made a connection between CO2 and temperature observations without examining the available data from other sources. What we actually have is not the result of scientific observation but the results of modelling with insufficient variables. Someone observed in a laboratory that CO2 could reflect heat and drew some linear extrapolations from their observations. What this meant was that further research might be warranted, not that we had certainty about any outcome

Unless that outcome verifies a preconceived conclusion. Then the data can be manipulated... peaks and valleys "hid" from a linear graph... viola! It verifies their hypothesis enough for the political class to take the ball and run with it. The "science is settled " .

This is what the IPCC said based on the conclusions of the lead AGW scientists (mostly those involved in the Climategate emails )

the debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over. Unified international political commitment is now urgently required to take action to avoid dangerous climate change


This is what the Goracle wrote in 'An Inconvenient Truth'
Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the
world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a
major catastrophe that could send our entire planet's climate system
into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods,
droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have
ever experienced - a catastrophe of our own making.

That fear mongering film was released in 2006 . That means we are 4 years away from his apocalypse .
Pure nonsense!
Yet ,based on the word of these scientists with their less than convincing conclusion ; politicicians have invested $billions of dollars + in mitigation measures.
As with the case of the Goracle ,they have personally profitted greatly from their steering public policy in that direction.

As with the case of the Goracle ,they have personally profitted greatly from their steering public policy in that direction.

And this social engineering has wasted how many billions of taxpayer dollars on Solyndra, Fisker Automotive (to build electric cars in Finland), millions in subsidies for people who average $175k income to buy Chevy Volts - 8000 of which are being recalled for being a fire hazard - and a purchase of 450,000 gallons of biofuel for Navy jets at 9 times the cost of the usual fuel from a company that was given $21.7 million in stimulus funds to build the refinery.

The weakness is Tut that claims are being made that CO2 is affecting climate with statistics that represent a very small sample and an impossibally short observation period. Someone has made a connection between CO2 and temperature observations without examining the available data from other sources. What we actually have is not the result of scientific observation but the results of modelling with insufficient variables. Someone observed in a laboratory that CO2 could reflect heat and drew some linear extrapolations from their observations. What this meant was that further research might be warranted, not that we had certainity about any outcome


Hi Clete,

A null-hypothesis is always very difficult to prove in a non-controlled environment. It is less complicated and a lot easier to go the other way.

It doesn't really matter where a hypothesis comes from. All that matters is that it is testable. As you point out the tests at this stage and not really conclusive. Observations and analysis will probably continue to expand because there is a hope of finding ,'the smoking gun of climate change'. In the case of climate it is just easier for science to proceed in that direction. Well, that's the way it seems to me.

Tut

unless that outcome verifies a preconceived conclusion. Then the data can be manipulated .....peaks and valleys "hid" from a linear graph .....viola !! It verifies their hypothesis enough for the political class to take the ball and run with it. The "science is settled " .

This is what the IPCC said based on the conclusions of the lead AGW scientists (mostly those involved in the Climategate emails )

the debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over. Unified international political commitment is now urgently required to take action to avoid dangerous climate change


This is what the Goracle wrote in 'An Inconvenient Truth'
Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the
world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a
major catastrophe that could send our entire planet's climate system
into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods,
droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have
ever experienced - a catastrophe of our own making.

That fear mongering film was released in 2006 . That means we are 4 years away from his apocalypse .
Pure nonsense!
Yet ,based on the word of these scientists with their less than convincing conclusion ; politicicians have invested $billions of dollars + in mitigation measures.
As with the case of the Goracle ,they have personally profitted greatly from their steering public policy in that direction.


Hi Tom,

So are we to conclude that the Goracle was privy to what was happening at the IPCC?


Tut

He in many ways has been steering this whole thing.

He created Generation Investment Management LLP(GIM) which among other things purchases carbon credits with client's money.

In the US it trades carbon credits at Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) . One of CCX co-founders is Maurice Strong​, a Canadian industrialist and diplomat who has helped steer international policy for the environmentalist movement.One of his former job was “senior advisor” to former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan at the time of the IPCC . Beginning to see the web ? Strong is a close personal friend of Gore.

The membership of CCX is currently voluntary (for now) . If the day ever comes when government regulations require CO2 emitters(almost everyone )to participate in cap and trade, then those who have created a market for the exchange of carbon credits are in a position to profit from it.
This day is approaching faster than anyone thinks . Our Supreme Court, in their infinite unerring wisdom ,has decreed Carbon Dioxide a "pollutant " that the Environmental Protection Agency can regulate. President Obama has by executive decree given the EPA the latitude to act against carbon emitters.

I can assure you the web is much more complex than what I have outlined .Strong was also at one time “senior advisor” to World Bank President James Wolfensohn .
The World Bank joined CCX and is purchasing carbon credits with the contributions from the world's nations (aka our tax dollars) . It has also set up a Carbon Finance Unit that conducts research on how to develop and trade carbon credits around the world .

So you have politicians around the world personally profitting based on what is at best a questionable premise... one based on fraudulent research by lead scientists who's motivations themselves are open to question... and have shown a willingness to manipulate data to support this predetermined conclusion. A conclusion that many people ,who cut their paychecks, have a personal stake in the outcome.

So you have politicians around the world personally profitting based on what is at best a questionable premise.

So politics as usual then, led by a man who would be king or was it president?

This just in...

Carbon emissions 'will defer Ice Age' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16439807)

I still say there isn't just a whole lot we can do to alter our climate one way or the other. And please, don't tell me I love dirty air.

So we are doomed if we do and doomed if we don't, a true doomsday scenario. I prefer to be warm than cold

Ditto that.