[tomder55]

Yes they did in Massachusetts v. EPA. The unelected ,appointed for life ,black robed oligarchs made a 5-4 decision that compels the EPA to take action to curb Co2 emissions in new cars ;SUVs and trucks... and opened the door for more intrusive regulatory action by the EPA.

Now get this ; in their decision they instructed the EPA to make a decision relying solely on global warming science . At the time they were unaware of how fraudulent the science was.

This decision today gives the President something in his pocket to crow about when he goes to Copenhagen . And as Steve said ;It also is a not so veiled threat by the administration to Congress, to move the Cap and Trade bill through the Senate, or they will take unilateral action.

[Catsmine]

Does "three strikes" count for flatulence? Methane's a greenhouse gas, too.

[tomder55]

Cats ;who knows ?The one thing permanent in government is the bureaucracy .The idiocy at Federal Agencies transfers from administration to administration.

People keep talking about the 2,000 page health care legislation being proposed... It is nothing compared to the volumes of pages generated when these administrators transfer signed legislation into enforcement code.

This is the same EPA that claimed there were no toxic fumes endangering rescue workers at "ground zero" after 9-11.

I have no doubt buried in the Federal Code is agricultural methane emission regulations.

[frangipanis]

Didn't read all the skeptic ramble as it's a no brainer. Scientific proof of climate change occurring at an alarming rate is irrefutable. To argue against the need for urgent action is utterly irresponsible.

Lateline - 24/11/2009: New report to confirm climate change trends

Climate Change: An Issue for National Security (Australia 2010) | Security News - SourceSecurity.com

[tomder55]

Scientific proof of climate change occurring at an alarming rate is irrefutable. To argue against the need for urgent action is utterly irresponsible.

"call me irresponsible - call me unreliable
Throw in undependable too"

My Bumper sticker
CLIMATE CHANGE HAPPENS is selling like hotcakes.

Perhaps you should read the skeptic ramble as it doesn't dispute climate change . It disputes AGW and the manipulation of the data the scientists used to support their conclusion.

We have had a 10 year cooling trend .
Global Cooling is Here

So the scientists most responsible for the IPCC findings first tried to suppress that inconvenient truth .Then they just changed the meme from Global Warming to climate change and continued to push for economy wrecking decisions by policy makers who are bound to a course of action based on fraudulent scientific consensus.

Look; the fools in Copenhagen will pontificate for 2 weeks and get nothing done. China and India will not sign on to any agreement and the Europeans are notorious cheaters when it came to Kyoto goals. Their own hyopcritical carbon footprint in the 2 week session will be larger than many 3rd world nations.( 1,200 limousines and 140 private jets producing 880 pounds of CO2 per attendee .)

[paraclete]

didn't read all the skeptic ramble as it's a no brainer. Scientific proof of climate change occuring at an alarming rate is irrefutable. To argue against the need for urgent action is utterly irresponsible.

Lateline - 24/11/2009: New report to confirm climate change trends

Climate Change: An Issue for National Security (Australia 2010) | Security News - SourceSecurity.com

Cannot dispute that climate change is happening, ie; glacial melt, withdrawing of polar ice but like so many, and unlike that dizzy dame looking after the Copenhagen conference, I am unconviced there is a close correlation between CO2 emissions and what we observe and even less convinced we have the will and the ability to reverse the emissions or that we should be attempting to.

[Catsmine]

Cannot dispute that climate change is happening, ie; glacial melt, withdrawing of polar ice but like so many, and unlike that dizzy dame looking after the Copenhagen conference, I am unconviced there is a close correlation between CO2 emissions and what we observe and even less convinced we have the will and the ability to reverse the emissions or that we should be attempting to.

The funny thing, Clete, is using their math to calculate the remedies they advocate. By their math, everything the whole planet does to reduce emissions will decrease the global teperature one degree Celsius every 129 years.

[paraclete]

The funny thing, Clete, is using their math to calculate the remedies they advocate. By their math, everything the whole planet does to reduce emissions will decrease the global temperature one degree Celcius every 129 years.

The US has reached a stage of paranoia on this declaring CO2 a health hazard, Australia is becoming paranoid seeing CO2 as a security threat, but no one has stopped to ask how did we get into this mess? And the answer; population, unbridaled population growth. The problem will not go away as more and more people in developing countries try to catch up with a west obscessed with CO2 abatement. Someone has to tell China and India that for the good of the planet 2 billion people cannot be allowed to develop into CO2 emitters. China has forty mile traffic jams now, imagine what it will be like when another 1 billion people attempt to go home for New Year, a billion cars sitting on expressways pumping out CO2 . Someone has to tell Africa it must forever remain in the dark. We have the ridiculous proposition being put by South Africa that it is a developing nation. Someone has to tell Brazil and Indonesia not to cut down rain forest

[speechlesstx]

Their own hyopcritical carbon footprint in the 2 week session will be larger than many 3rd world nations.( 1,200 limousines and 140 private jets producing 880 pounds of CO2 per attendee .)

Meanwhile, for the rest of us - don't exhale.

Apparently the theme for Copenhagen is "Scare the Children." The opening film, Please Help the World:

[frangipanis]

At work, so cheating with time here a little:

"Now, it could just be me, but I would have thought that the world's most comprehensive assessment and review of climate science by thousands of international experts should probably be the first port of call when searching for facts."

ABC News - Special Events Blog: Copenhagen Climate Change Conference

[paraclete]

at work, so cheating with time here a little:

"Now, it could just be me, but I would have thought that the world's most comprehensive assessment and review of climate science by thousands of international experts should probably be the first port of call when searching for facts."

ABC News - Special Events Blog: Copenhagen Climate Change Conference

Don't know what you mean about cheating with time what we have here is cheating with facts
It might be a fact that there are health risks associated with temperature rise, it might be a fact that we will get more severe weather events, and that we are likely to get severe impacts on food production but it is not a "fact" that we have the ability to bring things back to what we consider "normal" or to make any significant impact on what is happening. It is wishful thinking led by the Europeans who already have a decided economic disadvantage when compared with the rest of the world.
What we see here is an attempt to limit changes for which we don't actually know the reason to 2 degrees of warming, and we "know" that if the planet warms to that extent we are in unknown territory.

Lets look at the magnitude of what we need to do.
Restore rain forest, this means curtailing soya bean production, and beef production, and consumption, in Brazil and other places which rely on this production. i.e. the US needs to change its diet. It also means phasing out the use of rain forest timbers in furniture production, paper production
Cut vehicle emissions, this means smaller, more efficient vehicles. Just by coincidence the greatest impact will be in the US
Cut emissions from electricity production. Coal fired power stations need to be converted to gas and ultimately phased out. The impact will be felt in the US, Australia and China.
Cut fugitive emissions from the oil industry, so back to the big producing countries and the big users Saudi Arabia, US, Russia
Cut emissions associated with agriculture. This means changing the way we deal with all aspects of agriculture
Cut emissions associated with refrigeration

Has anyone grasped the fact that our modern society cannot be allowed to continue because our approach to everything we do is wrong if we are effectively to deal with the problem as it is presented to us. You wonder why the politicians are dancing around the problem? What ever they do is eventually political suicide and there are very few statesmen out there. All this and we are not even sure if we actually know the cause

[excon]

Hello clete:

We are the new Eastern Islanders.

excon

[frangipanis]

Dr James Hansen, a NASA Climate Scientist seems to have grasped some pertinent facts:

Lateline - 07/12/2009: Climate scientist discusses Copenhagen summit

[tomder55]

Hansen is also one of the biggest frauds on the planet
American Thinker Blog: Global Warm-mongering: More Silk from a Pig's Ear

Besides Al Gore (the Goracle) ,Hansen may be the biggest huckster in this scam.
NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice President Al Gore's closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA's vocal man-made global warming fears soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

Theon declared "climate models are useless." "My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit," Theon explained. "Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy," he added.

[paraclete]

Hello clete:

We are the new Eastern Islanders.

excon

Don't you mean Easter Islanders?

I agree we have cut down the trees and our statues face the sea but our demise is near

[frangipanis]

Some things just need to be spelt out:

12, 2009Conspiracies and the IPCC
A letter writer to a newspaper recently pleaded for guidance on how to get the facts about whether there is human-induced global warming. But the writer added emphatically that he did not want to read reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) because he wanted independent and reliable information.

Now, it could just be me, but I would have thought that the world's most comprehensive assessment and review of climate science by thousands of international experts should probably be the first port of call when searching for facts.

And make no mistake about how central the IPCC is to the global warming debate. The IPCC's reports are why ours and other governments around the world are calling for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; and why everyone will meet in Copenhagen next month.

But some of Australia's leading politicians such as Tony Abbott and Senator Nick Minchin have variously dismissed the IPCC as "alarmist" or fuelling a left-wing conspiracy to "de-industrialise" modern society.

During a visit to NSW's Henty Field Day this year (ABC News - Special Events Blog: Farmers still sceptical about climate change science) I met numerous farmers' representatives who also harboured a dark suspicion of the IPCC and of climate scientists.

So is the IPCC really that kooky? Have thousands of participating scientists from around the world who've contributed to four IPCC reports since 1990 duped the world with hidden agendas and manipulated science? Have they all got it wrong?

I should point out that the IPCC's conclusions are supported in most countries by most major scientific bodies. In Australia that includes the CSIRO, the Australian Academy of Science, and the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, to name a few.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the UN Environment Program (UNEP). It has issued four reports (1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007) each asserting with increasing certainty that the globe is warming (now 100 per cent certain) and that human driven greenhouse gas emissions are largely to blame (now 90 per cent certain). The next report is due 2014.

While it is called a 'panel,' the IPCC is actually one of the most ambitious scientific undertakings in history bringing together hundreds of scientists and other experts who are generally nominated by their governments or by non-government organisations (such as the Australian Academy of Science or the CSIRO). But the IPCC is also policy-neutral. Its job is to present the best science. There is not a single policy recommendation in its reports.

A different group of scientists is picked for each report and it is not just climate scientists - but biologists, physicists, geologists, economists, engineers, health experts and so on. Each report deals with three categories: the physical science, or how climate change works; impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, or how to deal with it; and mitigation, or how to minimise it.

Each of these working groups is headed by two scientists, one each from a developed and developing nation, supported by up to 500 other scientists known as lead authors who in turn are supported by up to 2000 further expert reviewers. Together they evaluate thousands of pieces of peer-reviewed research from around the globe.

Here is how Queensland University's Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, a world expert on coral reefs and climate change, describes what happened when he contributed a small slice of the 2007 IPCC report:

"The IPCC has one of the most rigorous review processes I have ever experienced. There are various stages of review. The first round involves the working groups picking over the text (hundreds of eyes and qualified expert opinions). If you have been involved in this process, it is a quite an experience which takes months and years - involving a lot of pedantic haggling over detail - but always using the peer-reviewed literature as the base. When this is complete, then the documents are sent to signatory governments for review. Leading scientists from each of the countries pick over the details. And after this, the documents are placed for open comment (on the web). At this point, any government, industry, science group, special interest group, or individual is invited for comment, recommendations, amendments etc. In response, the lead and contributing authors are required to respond to each comment or suggestion in a precise fashion, however correct or off-the-wall they may be. The responses from the specialists are them independently reviewed to ensure that the documents have been amended to include the comment/suggestion/objection or the comment/suggestion/objection refuted scientifically (ie with peer-reviewed literature). Personally, I had to respond to 87 comments on a relatively small contribution to the Australian and NZ chapters within Working Group 2 of the IPCC report in 2007. At the end of the day, I don't think you could have a more rigorous process. The only problem is that it ends up being conservative (e.g. failure of AR4 IPCCC in 2007 to predict the current dramatic decline of Arctic sea ice). That may be its only flaw."

There were more than 30,000 comments from the open public review process for just one of the 2007 working groups - all of them given a written response that is publicly available.

One of the lead authors on the 2001 and 2007 reports, UNSW's Professor Andy Pitman, also worries it is unduly cautious especially because in the final stages all governments, including those with vested interests in fossil fuels like Saudi Arabia, have to approve what has been written "line by line."

Prof Pitman says he and others acknowledge there is much they don't know about how the earth and the climate work; that they have been wrong on some things and that they are eager to test and re-test emerging data. They are by nature a conservative bunch, he says. "All good scientists are sceptics to the core."

But so far nothing has seriously challenged their analysis of an underlying warming trend and its connection to human generated CO2 emissions. If anything, the latest data points to faster and stronger global warming.

"Don't you think ambitious scientists would love to make their name proving global warming wrong? To prove the IPCC is wrong? ," he says. "It would guarantee a Nobel prize!"

"Are we just biased and have we turned the profession into being distorted onto our side?" asks New Zealand's Professor Martin Manning of Victoria University who headed technical support for the 2007 IPCC report. "God, I wish that were the case, because I have grandchildren and practically every day I really, really wish we were wrong."

Which brings us to one of the enduring sources of frustration among IPCC and many other scientists. Just about all the scientists attacking the IPCC, Prof. Pitman says, have never researched nor published any climate science in peer-reviewed journals - and peer review is how science works.

"Climate Science is not about opinions. It is about what is provable and disprovable. There are no scientific publications that provide serious challenge to the IPCC conclusions. Not one. But there are literally thousands that support the conclusions of the IPCC."


When is science valid?
A valuable reference here is a short, sharp guide published by the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies. It's worth a look.

In part, it provides a checklist to see whether a scientific idea has been validated:

•Has it been published in the peer-reviewed literature in that field of science?
•Have other scientists cited that publication as being valid (as opposed to citing it to show that it is wrong?)
•Have other scientists conducted additional tests that show the idea to be valid?
•Has the idea been built upon to create new understanding, i.e. has the idea become useful?
Posted by Margot O'Neill on November 12, 2009 in Copenhagen Climate Change Conference | Permalink

[paraclete]

Dr James Hansen, a NASA Climate Scientist seems to have grasped some pertinent facts:

Lateline - 07/12/2009: Climate scientist discusses Copenhagen summit

Yes Hansen has a message there and in part I agree with him but I do think you should research Bob Carter also. You see there are many aspects to this debate and no one commentator is entirely right. We must not take action on short term observations

[frangipanis]

Yes Hansen has a message there and in part I agree with him but I do think you should research Bob Carter also. You see there are many aspects to this debate and no one commentator is entirely right. We must not take action on short term observations

We must take action based on what we already know to be fact. My money rests on the reputation and expertise of people like Will Steffan, Executive Director of the Institute of Climate Change at the Australian National University and the vast store of scientific evidence.

[Catsmine]

Frangipanis, the quote from Ms. O'neill (is she a PhD?) is fascinating, but she is not describing the Scientific method. She is describing the Scholastic method. Both are useful methods of study, but by using the Scientific method you can debunk invalid conclusions easily with just one criterion: can you predict a second occurrence?

Has any of the "Climate Science" made an accurate prediction? I do not know of one. I have heard of several incorrect predictions, have I missed the correct ones?

[tomder55]

Has any of the "Climate Science" made an accurate prediction? I do not know of one.

Not only that ;with the destruction of the raw data they could never even duplicate results... a prime criteria for scientific integrity . In the case in New Zealand where all the data was obtained;an honest graphing of the data showed completely different results than were published.