CO2 as the main climate driver is a factored ,modeled political Hoax imo.

I would be happy to blame CO2 for climate change but show me the proof.Not some jumped up theory supported by selected ipcc scientists.Let's not beat around the bush ,they are employed.

This whole farce thing is driven by money imho.(THE COLLAPSE OF THE CARBON MARKET IS IT'S DEATH KNELL)and before anybody starts???,my opinion is my own, I am not watts or iceage influenced or biased towards warmists or coolist blog sites

Time to get back to Earth and deal with the real issues and stop wasting time on this silly HOAX..

btw. Gray. (Hope you and your crew are well)

Hi AIMSIR, I trust you are well - and still have some snow lying?

I am surprised by the comment I have highlighted?  Do you really believe this to be the case?  My understanding is that the IPCC took climate science research from all those involved in the subject around the world.  Nobody 'works' for the IPCC.

Do you not think that we need to somehow distil out the true science from the political froth which has somehow enveloped it?  You have a point that it has turned into something about money and economics - but is that not merely a reflection of how out socio-economic-political model works?

Surely you could apply the same comments to, for example:

• Attempts to protect endangered species (i.e. it's all about money, because that's what's required to provide the resources needed for parks and protection), or


• Providing drinking water in the third world (i.e. it's all about money to provide the people and the technology), or


• Eradicating specific diseases (i.e. it's all about money to provide the resources, chemicals, medicines, education etc)

If my point is well made then the fact that dealing with AGW ends up being about allocation of resources (money) and making policy choices is just an inevitable path that has to be followed?

What distinguishes AGW from the other threats I have given as examples is that AGW is not accepted universally as a threat that has to be tackled.  The question is 'why not' - and the answer is because the cost is both great and requires a massive transfer of resources between countries, threatening continued improvements in living standards in the nations that would be required to give (up) something.

We both agree that AGW is not the only issue confronting mankind but I disagree fundamentally with the notion that because some view it as not the most important that it can be ignored.  If a patient is admitted to hospital with multiple aliments the doctors don't just deal with one....  That risks the death of the patient..... hint.....

An article in Aftenposten today shows that a new study amongst Norwegians points to a major downturn in public belief about AGW. The figures show 51% believe people are having an impact on climate and the other 49% do not subsribe to that notion.

And that's one of the main reasons politicans don't want to act

The AGW lobby did clearly state that snow and cold would almost become a thing of the past. These claims should never have been passed as they were based on limited facts and knowledge. Bad move.... for the AGW lobby that is....

And they are perfectly correct.  That may indeed happen eventually if warming continues as predicted.

The problem is that the science says it may happen in 100 years time if this, that and the other happen.  The media report it will happen.  With no caveats or explanation or timescale.   The public believe whatever the media feed them.....

I've just noticed that what AIMSIR actually said was

CO2 as the main climate driver is a factored ,modeled political Hoax imo.

Well yes, maybe you could call that a hoax.

It is certainly not the main climate driver.  

However, it is one of the factors that are currently changing whilst the main drivers remain constant or within normal short term natural variations. 

Will it have any effect?   Can you really be sure it will not?

The AGW lobby did clearly state that snow and cold would almost become a thing of the past. These claims should never have been passed as they were based on limited facts and knowledge. Bad move.... for the AGW lobby that is....

And they are perfectly correct.  That may indeed happen eventually if warming continues as predicted.

The problem is that the science says it may happen in 100 years time if this, that and the other happen.  The media report it will happen.  With no caveats or explanation or timescale.   The public believe whatever the media feed them.....

I disagree with the last part.

Recent reports have said that the ice could all be gone in the arctic in the next 5-20 years (and I know you will say that it may well do so given the current low ice extent) and that milder, wetter winters will be the most likely outcome from now on. The latter has been said many times over the last decade... basically on the assumption that AGW will overide any natural swings.

Btw, wouldn't it be ironic if the 'projected' magnitude of AGW led to a new LIA era?!

---

Bjorli, Norway

Website 

Recent reports have said that the ice could all be gone in the arctic in the next 5-20 years (and I know you will say that it may well do so given the current low ice extent) and that milder, wetter winters will be the most likely outcome from now on. The latter has been said many times over the last decade... basically on the assumption that AGW will overide any natural swings.

Recent Media reports have.

Scientists have not said all Arctic Sea Ice will have gone within x years.  And when they have said it may go within x years, they do so on the assumption of AGW over-riding any natural swings. 

Though I agree they should sometimes make this clearer

Btw, wouldn't it be ironic if the 'projected' magnitude of AGW led to a new LIA era?!

I don't believe in catastrophic global cooling    But I do think that if recent warming is natural then the next swing to colder conditions will be more severe than the LIA.  Assuming no human influence on climate.

 

CO2 as the main climate driver is a factored ,modeled political Hoax imo.

I would be happy to blame CO2 for climate change but show me the proof.Not some jumped up theory supported by selected ipcc scientists.Let's not beat around the bush ,they are employed.

This whole farce thing is driven by money imho.(THE COLLAPSE OF THE CARBON MARKET IS IT'S DEATH KNELL)and before anybody starts???,my opinion is my own, I am not watts or iceage influenced or biased towards warmists or coolist blog sites

Time to get back to Earth and deal with the real issues and stop wasting time on this silly HOAX..

btw. Gray. (Hope you and your crew are well)

 

Hi AIMSIR, I trust you are well - and still have some snow lying?

I am surprised by the comment I have highlighted?  Do you really believe this to be the case?  My understanding is that the IPCC took climate science research from all those involved in the subject around the world.  Nobody 'works' for the IPCC.

Do you not think that we need to somehow distil out the true science from the political froth which has somehow enveloped it?  You have a point that it has turned into something about money and economics - but is that not merely a reflection of how out socio-economic-political model works?

Surely you could apply the same comments to, for example:

• Attempts to protect endangered species (i.e. it's all about money, because that's what's required to provide the resources needed for parks and protection), or


• Providing drinking water in the third world (i.e. it's all about money to provide the people and the technology), or


• Eradicating specific diseases (i.e. it's all about money to provide the resources, chemicals, medicines, education etc)

If my point is well made then the fact that dealing with AGW ends up being about allocation of resources (money) and making policy choices is just an inevitable path that has to be followed?

What distinguishes AGW from the other threats I have given as examples is that AGW is not accepted universally as a threat that has to be tackled.  The question is 'why not' - and the answer is because the cost is both great and requires a massive transfer of resources between countries, threatening continued improvements in living standards in the nations that would be required to give (up) something.

 

We both agree that AGW is not the only issue confronting mankind but I disagree fundamentally with the notion that because some view it as not the most important that it can be ignored.  If a patient is admitted to hospital with multiple aliments the doctors don't just deal with one....  That risks the death of the patient..... hint.....

 

That part was a bit emotional in hindsight.

I do despise the machine behind the Hoax though.

I am aware that (nearly)everything costs money.but I really think it could be better spent/used if it has to be, on the worthwhile projects you have mentioned rather than an invented economy created by the HOAX.

A slow thaw here btw.Great for icicles.

Hope things are good with you weatherwise.

I do despise the machine behind the Hoax though.

I don't despise it. I just want one myself 

Ok Gandalf.

That part was a bit emotional in hindsight.

I do despise the machine behind the Hoax though.

I am aware that (nearly)everything costs money.but I really think it could be better spent/used if it has to be, on the worthwhile projects you have mentioned rather than an invented economy created by the HOAX.

A slow thaw here btw.Great for icicles.

Hope things are good with you weatherwise.

LOL. I had noticed that you are inclined to the occasional emotive excess....

Snow almost gone from here - all two centimetres of it....

If I had my way this thread would be allowed to die quietly - AGW is absolutely not a hoax - defined as:

A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth.

There is a lot of clear water between not being able fully to prove something and it being a hoax.

Is religion a hoax then?  You cannot prove the existence of God....

So, when would you think money should be committed to trying to curb AGW?  Perhaps we should adopt the same approach as the Canadians did to the Newfoundland cod population.  Ignore all the warning signs and then look on with amazement when catastrpohe strikes - which it did.

Or how about the dodo?   That was another fine example of man's ability to think ahead and manage resources....

People comment here about man's intelligence and ingenuity but there is ample evidence that we don't respond to the warning signals.   As one of my favourite expressions goes - the one thing we learn from history is that nobody learns from history.....

Ok Gandalf.

That part was a bit emotional in hindsight.

I do despise the machine behind the Hoax though.

I am aware that (nearly)everything costs money.but I really think it could be better spent/used if it has to be, on the worthwhile projects you have mentioned rather than an invented economy created by the HOAX.

A slow thaw here btw.Great for icicles.

Hope things are good with you weatherwise.

 

LOL. I had noticed that you are inclined to the occasional emotive excess....

Snow almost gone from here - all two centimetres of it....

If I had my way this thread would be allowed to die quietly - AGW is absolutely not a hoax - defined as:

A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth.

 

There is a lot of clear water between not being able fully to prove something and it being a hoax.

Is religion a hoax then?  You cannot prove the existence of God....

 

So, when would you think money should be committed to trying to curb AGW?  Perhaps we should adopt the same approach as the Canadians did to the Newfoundland cod population.  Ignore all the warning signs and then look on with amazement when catastrpohe strikes - which it did.

Or how about the dodo?   That was another fine example of man's ability to think ahead and manage resources....

 

People comment here about man's intelligence and ingenuity but there is ample evidence that we don't respond to the warning signals.   As one of my favourite expressions goes - the one thing we learn from history is that nobody learns from history.....

 

 

I think massive amounts of money are being pumped into an alternative to fossil fuelled energy for good reason.

We don't need a scare story or a false carbon trading ecconomy to move things forward imo.The Hoax.

The Dodo example is a consequence of our existance.as with extinctions caused by other animals,we are not alone when it comes to such.

There is proof of God btw.

You only have to ask my wife.

Mind you, she also believes in the devil.

I think massive amounts of money are being pumped into an alternative to fossil fuelled energy for good reason.

I don't think enough money is, and for (not) good reason

We don't need a scare story or a false carbon trading ecconomy to move things forward imo.The Hoax.

Those who want us to remain reianet on 19th century technology, and make billions of money form it would agree,

The Dodo example is a consequence of our existance.as with extinctions caused by other animals,we are not alone when it comes to such.

Humans have caused thousands of extinctions in the past few thousand years.  Can any other species claim then same over that past 4.5 billion years?  We're bigger than Chicxulub in the geological record.  I am not proud.

There is proof of God btw.

There is proof humans think they are God

I think massive amounts of money are being pumped into an alternative to fossil fuelled energy for good reason.

I don't think enough money is, and for (not) good reason

We don't need a scare story or a false carbon trading ecconomy to move things forward imo.The Hoax.

Those who want us to remain reianet on 19th century technology, and make billions of money form it would agree,

The Dodo example is a consequence of our existance.as with extinctions caused by other animals,we are not alone when it comes to such.

Humans have caused thousands of extinctions in the past few thousand years.  Can any other species claim then same over that past 4.5 billion years?  We're bigger than Chicxulub in the geological record.  I am not proud.

There is proof of God btw.

There is proof humans think they are God

For and against.

There lies the Hoax imo.The Greatest warming Hoax is perpretated and magnified by certain organizations we are all familiar with.To the detriment of the truth.

You should examine the political and buisiness side of AGW Essan

For and against.

There lies the Hoax imo.The Greatest warming Hoax is perpretated and magnified by certain organizations we are all familiar with.To the detriment of the truth.

But curiously the greatest and loudest deniers are financed by those with most to gain by continuing as we are.

Much the same as the tobacco industry's denial of health risks associated with smoking.  Funny that.   A much bigger hoax played on people who then died from smoking-related diseases.  I'm sure they found the propaganda very reassuring until it turned out to be a monumental hoax at their expense.

So, I wonder where the greatest political and economic clout lies at the moment..... perhaps with the fossil fuel businesses who have rather a lot to lose if it turns out the "patient" is indeed at risk of disease or death from over-use of their products....

There's always another angle AIMSIR, if you are prepared to look....

There's always another angle AIMSIR, if you are prepared to look....

You should examine the political and buisiness side of AGW Essan

For and against.

There lies the Hoax imo.The Greatest warming Hoax is perpretated and magnified by certain organizations we are all familiar with.To the detriment of the truth.

There lies the proof there is no hoax IMO

You are confusing politics and business and media with science. The former belatedly jump on the later when they think there is personal benefit for themselves.

The science came first.  A very, very, long way first. 

Until someone shows me the time machine there can not be any possibility of a hoax.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/TBA--LTonly.pdf

The above is a paper by Lonnie G. Thompson of The Ohio State University.

He concludes:

Clearly mitigation is our best

option, but so far most societies

around the world, including the

United States and the other largest

emitters of greenhouse gases, have

done little more than talk about the

importance of mitigation. Many

Americans do not even accept the

reality of global warming. The fossil

fuel industry has spent millions of

dollars on a disinformation campaign

to delude the public about the threat,

and the campaign has been amazingly

successful. (This effort is reminiscent

of the tobacco industry’s effort

to convince Americans that smoking

You should examine the political and buisiness side of AGW Essan

For and against.

There lies the Hoax imo.The Greatest warming Hoax is perpretated and magnified by certain organizations we are all familiar with.To the detriment of the truth.

But politicians and big business are only now starting to accept what scientists have been saying for many decades.  True, some may be using it for their own ends, but the science came first.

If there's any hoax, it's the suggestion that politicians and big business 'invented' AGW.   Which is a bit like arguing that politicians and big business invented evolution.

Edit: oops, had forgotten I replied to that last night

You should examine the political and buisiness side of AGW Essan

For and against.

There lies the Hoax imo.The Greatest warming Hoax is perpretated and magnified by certain organizations we are all familiar with.To the detriment of the truth.

But politicians and big business are only now starting to accept what scientists have been saying for many decades.  True, some may be using it for their own ends, but the science came first.

If there's any hoax, it's the suggestion that politicians and big business 'invented' AGW.   Which is a bit like arguing that politicians and big business invented evolution.

 

Edit: oops, had forgotten I replied to that last night

I agree, politicians and big buisiness are starting to accept what scientiststs say( As interpreted by the IPCC).

The above mentioned Datum organisation has been found to be flawed and misrepresentative of science.

The science did come first.Then the IPPC came along and ruined it, claiming a false consensus as regards agw.imo

I suppose the Hoax is a joint venture?.

I do not disagree with your views on local climate change and it's effects.btw.

You should examine the political and buisiness side of AGW Essan

For and against.

There lies the Hoax imo.The Greatest warming Hoax is perpretated and magnified by certain organizations we are all familiar with.To the detriment of the truth.

But politicians and big business are only now starting to accept what scientists have been saying for many decades.  True, some may be using it for their own ends, but the science came first.

If there's any hoax, it's the suggestion that politicians and big business 'invented' AGW.   Which is a bit like arguing that politicians and big business invented evolution.

 

Edit: oops, had forgotten I replied to that last night

I must get a bottle of that Talisker for Christmas as regards the last point.

I agree, politicians and big buisiness are starting to accept what scientiststs say( As interpreted by the IPCC).

The above mentioned Datum organisation has been found to be flawed and misrepresentative of science.

The science did come first.Then the IPPC came along and ruined it, claiming a false consensus as regards agw.imo

I suppose the Hoax is a joint venture.

I do not disagree with your views on local climate change and it's effects.btw.

You should examine the political and buisiness side of AGW Essan

For and against.

There lies the Hoax imo.The Greatest warming Hoax is perpretated and magnified by certain organizations we are all familiar with.To the detriment of the truth.

But politicians and big business are only now starting to accept what scientists have been saying for many decades.  True, some may be using it for their own ends, but the science came first.

If there's any hoax, it's the suggestion that politicians and big business 'invented' AGW.   Which is a bit like arguing that politicians and big business invented evolution.

 

Edit: oops, had forgotten I replied to that last night

I must get a bottle of that Talisker for Christmas as regards the last point.

I agree, politicians and big buisiness are starting to accept what scientiststs say( As interpreted by the IPCC).

The above mentioned Datum organisation has been found to be flawed and misrepresentative of science.

The science did come first.Then the IPPC came along and ruined it, claiming a false consensus as regards agw.imo

I suppose the Hoax is a joint venture.

I do not disagree with your views on local climate change and it's effects.btw.