Can't take much more of this global warming

[dpons]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The correct term is climate change , not global warming anyway

Sorry, "climate change" does not say much, as climate is always changing, being unstable almost by definition.

What's going on now is global warming. "Climate change" is term the oil industry spin doctors coined to avoid recognizing the warming trend.

See the google search someone else posted, speaks by itself.

[StuM]

> Please point us to this income redistribution plan. Please no generalities, we need specifics.

You've asked a few times now, so here's one:

Ottmar Edenhofer, who is co-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change:

“The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.”

Edenhofer also said “climate policy is redistributing the world’s wealth” and that “it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization.”

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

> Please point us to this income redistribution plan. Please no generalities, we need specifics.

You've asked a few times now, so here's one:

Ottmar Edenhofer, who is co-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change:

“The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.”

Edenhofer also said “climate policy is redistributing the world’s wealth” and that “it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization.”

Now find the rest of the interview and read Dr Edenhofer's comments in their entirety and in context.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by dpons

Sorry, "climate change" does not say much, as climate is always changing, being unstable almost by definition.

What's going on now is global warming. "Climate change" is term the oil industry spin doctors coined to avoid recognizing the warming trend.

See the google search someone else posted, speaks by itself.

A search of google scholar will find references to "climate change" going back to 1965.

Global warming references go back to 1963 http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/...W%3E2.0.CO%3B2

[PDF] The climate of Africa
BW Thompson, BW Thompson - 1965 - pdf6508.wefibooks.com
... By BW Thompson The Climate of Africa Details: Climate Change and Development in Africa
Climate Change and Development in Africa (CCDA) III Conference Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, October
21st to 23rd 2013 1 CLIMATE CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA ...

The IPCC has been around since 1988. The CC stands for .....

The current use of the "climate change" can be traced to a memo from Frank Luntz to the George W. Bush campaign.

The environment is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general – and President Bush in particular – are most vulnerable. A caricature has taken hold in the public imagination: Republicans seemingly in the pockets of corporate fat cats who rub their hands together and chuckle maniacally as they plot to pollute America for fun and profit. And only the Democrats and their goodhearted friends from Washington can save America from these sinister companies drooling at the prospect of strip mining every picturesque mountain range, drilling for oil on every white sand beach, and clear cutting every green forest.
The fundamental problem for Republicans when it comes to the environment is that whatever you say is viewed through the prism of suspicion. As with education, Social Security and so many other issues, the Democrats have been expert at constructing a narrative in which Republicans and conservatives are the bad guys. And if Americans swallow that story, then whatever comes later is mere detail.
Indeed, it can be helpful to think of environmental (and other) issues in terms of “story.” A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth.

WINNING THE GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE – AN OVERVIEW
Please keep in mind the following communication recommendations as you address global warming in general, particularly as Democrats and opinion leaders attack President Bush over Kyoto.
1. The scientific debate remains open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.
2. Americans want a free and open discussion. Even though Democrats savaged President Bush for formally withdrawing from the Kyoto accord, the truth is that none of them would have actually voted to ratify the treaty, and they were all glad to see it die. Emphasize the importance of “acting only with all the facts in hand” and “making the right decision, not the quick decisions.”
3. Technology and innovation are the key in arguments on both sides. Global warming alarmists use American superiority in technology and innovation quite effectively in responding to accusations that international agreements such as the Kyoto accord could cost the United States billions. Rather than condemning corporate America the way most environmentalists have done in the past, they attack their us for lacking faith in our collective ability to meet any economic challenges presented by environmental changes we make. This should be our argument. We need to emphasize how voluntary innovation and experimentation are preferable to bureaucratic or international intervention and regulation.
4. The “international fairness” issue is the emotional home run. Given the chance, Americans will demand that all nations be part of any international global warming treaty. Nations such as China, Mexico and India would have to sign such an agreement for the majority of Americans to support it.
5. The economic argument should be secondary. Many of you will want to focus on the higher prices and lost jobs that would result from complying with Kyoto, but you can do better. Yes, when put in specific terms (food and fuel prices, for example) on an individual-by-individual basis, this argument does resonate. Yes, the fact that Kyoto would hurt the economic well being of seniors and the poor is of particular concern. However, the economic argument is less effective than each of the arguments listed above.

The most important principle in any discussion of global warming is your commitment to sound science. Americans unanimously believe all environmental rules and regulations should be based on sound science and common sense. Similarly, our confidence in the ability of science and technology to solve our nation’s ills is second to none. Both perceptions will work in your favor if properly cultivated.
The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science. Americans believe that all the strange weather that was associated with El Nino had something to do with global warming, and there is little you can do to convince them otherwise. However, only a handful of people believes the science of global warming is a closed question. Most Americans want more information so that they can make an informed decision. It is our job to provide that information.

You need to be even more active in recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view, and much more active in making them part of your message. People are willing to trust scientists, engineers, and other leading research professionals, and less willing to trust politicians. If you wish to challenge the prevailing wisdom about global warming, it is more effective to have professionals making the case than politicians. When you do enter the fray, keep your message short, concise, and refer to the source of the material you use. Back up your points with a limited number of facts and figures – but then explain why they matter.
One final science note: Americans have little trust in arguments relying on short-term data, such as mentioning that year X was the hottest on record or year Y was the coldest on record, etc. Even 15 years of satellite records or modeling that shows rising sea levels is not enough.

We have spent the last seven years examining how best to communicate complicated ideas and controversial subjects. The terminology in the upcoming environmental debate needs refinement, starting with “global warming” and ending with “environmentalism.” It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.
1. “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming.” As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

The rest is here - https://www2.bc.edu/~plater/Newpubli...pmats/02.6.pdf

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Lack of environmental/energy policy has already killed more people, and will continue to kill/displace more people, than a forward-looking environment/energy policy is likely to do.

(cough-Iraq-cough)

There have been many extremely valuable environmental policies adopted that have undoubtedly saved or improved many lives. The problem is, nut cases whose environmental lusts keep them from discriminating between beneficial and harmful initiatives have in fact killed people indirectly. AGW is one of those harmful, and now clearly bogus, issues typically adopted by (cough-leftwingloons-cough).

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by dpons

Sorry, "climate change" does not say much, as climate is always changing, being unstable almost by definition.

What's going on now is global warming. "Climate change" is term the oil industry spin doctors coined to avoid recognizing the warming trend.

See the google search someone else posted, speaks by itself.

Uh, no. Climate change is an ass covering nomenclature move by warmists who realized that it probably wasn't actually warming all that much, so they had best align their movement with 'climate change'. So much less embarrassing that trying to explain massive increases in Antarctic ice in a warming world.

It is true that the phrase has been with us for some time, but climate change to the IPCC means one thing and one thing only - global warming.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by StuM

> Please point us to this income redistribution plan. Please no generalities, we need specifics.

You've asked a few times now, so here's one:

Ottmar Edenhofer, who is co-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change:

“The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.”

Edenhofer also said “climate policy is redistributing the world’s wealth” and that “it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization.”

Thanks Stu...but all I seem to hear are crickets...
Look, the UN wants it's hands on that carbon tax baby....just imagine how many hookers they could buy at their MMGW conventions with it..

You have to realize that MMGW is a Religion.
Carbon Taxes and Credits are their Sacraments.
It's a Holy War, a Jihad and that is why anyone who dares speak the heresy is labeled a "Denier"!
They use the language of Religion debate for a reason folks.

[Nicholson58]

[QUOTE=jackdale;1434623]We know that natural cycles worked for millions of years. Then we had this great idea of releasing sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere.

Huh!! Like having a volcano blow 10X to 100X that into the atmosphere in one eruption. Hmmmmm.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Nicholson58

Huh!! Like having a volcano blow 10X to 100X that into the atmosphere in one eruption. Hmmmmm.

Now don't go bringing up the natural sources of CO2 like that....it's only MAN that can be evil and destroy the planet. Everything the planet does is clean as the wind driven snow...

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

AGW is one of those harmful, and now clearly bogus, issues

Your friend Dr Spence seems to think that the warming trend continues. So, which is it - cooling, or warming?

The only thing that's clear, is that the anti-AGW argument is peppered with bogus claims about the science and the motivation of climate scientists. Some 95% of them, at last check.

[jackdale]

[QUOTE=Nicholson58;1435456]

Originally Posted by jackdale

We know that natural cycles worked for millions of years. Then we had this great idea of releasing sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere.

Huh!! Like having a volcano blow 10X to 100X that into the atmosphere in one eruption. Hmmmmm.

According to the USGS human CO2 emissions are 135 times all volcanic activity. In addition the volcanic activity is a net negative forcing. They lower temperatures. The Pinatubo eruption is clearly shown on Roy Spencer's site.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Thanks Stu...but all I seem to hear are crickets...

I am still waiting for Stu to find and read the whole interview. Or is he relying on the disinformation program of quote miners?

[Lake-Effect]

Some light reading about Polar Vortices.



Money quote:

Summary of current denier position:
"Liberals keep telling me the Titanic is sinking but my side of the ship is 500 feet in the air."

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Your friend Dr Spence seems to think that the warming trend continues. So, which is it - cooling, or warming?

The only thing that's clear, is that the anti-AGW argument is peppered with bogus claims about the science and the motivation of climate scientists. Some 95% of them, at last check.

LE...
Are you seriuosly trying to sell that there are not:
1. bogus claims in the MMGW movement
2. the scientists that make their living off of MMGW grants have no motivation

Because if so...well....I took you for smarter than that.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Your friend Dr Spence seems to think that the warming trend continues. So, which is it - cooling, or warming?

The only thing that's clear, is that the anti-AGW argument is peppered with bogus claims about the science and the motivation of climate scientists. Some 95% of them, at last check.

Where have said the earth is cooling? There are many scientists who believe we are entering a cooling phase that may endure for the next 50 years or so, but I think everyone agrees the planet has warmed since the end of the little ice age, consistent with an eons old trend of cyclic warming and cooling.

And please, stop with the 95% of climate scientists agree rubbish. Even within the IPCC there is a range of predictions of the impacts of CO2 enrichment, none of which have come true, of course, but the whole idea of a consensus, as well as insisting that it exists just makes you sound like a loon. It simply doesn't exist.

Speaking of Roy Spencer, below is a graph from his website of the average temperatures in the Antarctic since 1998. Can you point me to the warming trend for this continent, because I am having a hard time identifying it.....