Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

-”One might phrase this less politely but you are making a mountain of nothing. LOOK AT THE GRAPH!!!! It clearly shows increasing temperature over the long term.”

Actually it doesn’t. It shows increasing temperatures over a very short term. I’ve already told you you should provide us with a graph that clearly shows recent abnormality compared to the previous one or two thousand years at the very least.

Of course, you can do no such thing because there is nothing at all remarkable about the recent temperatures or trends. And we both know it.

Sure, less than a decade is too short a term to make any strong claims; but then short term is all you want to argue about, because the long term exposes your claim as being nothing but hysteria.

- “You have been told before that short time intervals are irrelevant to climate measurement. You are being told that again.”

No, it was me that told you that.

Please provide the aforementioned long term graph which shows what you are concerned about. Time to put up or shut up.

You have claimed that recent warming must be caused by CO2, on the grounds that the natural influences are all accounted for. By implication you are saying that every effect and every feedback of every climate influence is now fully understood; there is no more to be learned.

When did we reach this level of 100% knowledge about the climate? What year was that? What was the final piece in the jigsaw?

Because, of course, the reality is that our understanding of the climate is still primative. But you have to make such a laughable claim because there’s no other way you can pretend there’s even an issue.
You are in effect stating that there can never be any more announcements about new climate discoveries, because we already know everything about it. It’ll be interesting to see how that pans out for you…

- “The CO2 is going up 50 times faster than it has EVER done in the past 600,000 years.”

And we’ve had nearly a decade of flat or cooling temperatures. NASA’s satallites show it. NASA sea temperature records show it. It’s almost like they’re, oh I don’t know, uncorrelated.

- “The temperature appears to be at the beginning what appears to be the climate equivalent of an attempt to reach escape velocity.”

All that’s going up at an alarming rate is your shrillness. What was your recent classic? Something about the scientists soiling themselves with fear or something?

You might be less hysterical if you had some tangible facts you could wield; facts like these scientists sifting the evidence in the recent Australian government questions examination:
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/wong-fielding/7-carter-evans-fr anks-kininmonth-due-diligence-on-wong.pdf

And yes, the theory does demand enhanced polar warming; to deny it is to deny the very efficacy of CO2 as a forcing agent.

Do you know what was the most intersting thing about that piece published in Nature? It wasn’t that it was beyond incompetent, it was the response of the alarmists to it.
Before then they’d shrugged off the absence of the predicted warming and claimed that, actually, their models could be made to fit this data. But when it was published they leapt on it and said how the discovery of the fingerprint of global warming was proof of the theory.
It was commented on at the time that there seems to be no climate pattern which doesn’t confirm the warming theory.

And that’s pretty much what you did, isn’t it: I prompted you about the lack of Antarctic warming fingerprint and you found the Nature piece and posted it as evidence. But now that even you are forced to concede what a complete fabrication it is you too turn on a dime and suddenly we’re told it’s “Bullsh!t” to expect any such thing.

And you wonder why more and more people are seeing through your alarmism.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

If the cost is shared, how is “the herd” increased elsewhere? Does “elsewhere” have more ability to remove their demand for electricity in favor of giving the methane producers a free ride?

Somehow you ALWAYS get back to this idea that it can’t be done fairly, (possibly true), and ignoring that we required that the negotiated result has to be fair (certainly true).

I think it would be a good idea if you gave up BP. You haven’t made any point except that you only read PART of what is written anywhere and you have a bad attitude.

BJ

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The battle took an unexpected turn, when the contestant in the blue corner threw down his arms and left the field, vowing never to return.
Meanwhile, something stirred in the shadows … wat’s this! An old adversary returns, beating his chest and flailing his arms wildly. The beat goes on….

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Reduce it here, it will increase elsewhere. Zero sum, New Zealanders lose. Shame we don’t have more coal stations we could close down.

>>I suggest that you review the consequences of hitting plus 3 degrees.

I think I’ll give up talking to warmists. Sacrificing lambs at the altar didn’t work in 607AD, and it still won’t work now.

I’ll leave it there. Suggest you read Gareth’s book. I dare say you’ll actually agree with the conclusions.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Really? I missed the part that said that it was impossible. If you could prove that I’d be very surprised. We all acknowledge that it is extremely difficult, but impossible?

Did you get to the part where I pointed at this?
http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=1530

The idea of reducing the herd is NOT bad. The point is that there has to be an economic reason for it. The idea of that things like beef get more expensive for EVERYONE we export to (rumination remuneration) isn’t all that bad either. (Though I’d prefer not to penalize the poor, and Phil would probably prefer to curtail pork and chicken consumption as well )

Can we get 20% reduction (or credits) off the farmers 40% of emissions in various ways? That would leave us with 32% to make up out of the rest of the economy. Transport, Power Generation, Heating and the like. Taking a chunk out of each. We have to consider our migration targets seriously as well, as our rate of population increase is not sustainable. Electric cars are of use in meeting the goals.

“Massively difficult” isn’t the same as impossible. I suggest that you review the consequences of hitting plus 3 degrees.

Compared to adapting to that on a planetary basis, massively difficult looks easy.

The only way you can describe this as barking mad is if you are COMPLETELY certain that we are wrong about warming. Which begs the question of your previous stance that we simply don’t know enough.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

They’re either “Not Serious” or “Barking Mad”.

So which is it?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

No discussion in the early part of the meeting of what a unilateral target would look like. Maybe there was none, I did not stay.

It is indeed an “all or nothing” issue with respect to participation at 40%.

A TARGET mind you, for negotiations that haven’t yet happened between countries who may or may not participate.

You ask questions about future political agreements. You would obtain more certainty if you stuck to the science questions.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like this you mean….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kyoto36-2005.png

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Well, now you might like to reflect on your own drivel at 10:37 am…..

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

STOP!

You DID NOT READ THIS PROPERLY! and you are yourself appearing quite stupid.

What I said and what was clearly understood by all, is that we can’t do it all by ourselves but that it MUST be part of a global agreement.

GLOBAL AGREEMENT MEANS EVERYONE IS ON BOARD. Harping on the “what if Argentina isn’t on board” point is entirely irrelevant.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

How many countries have included agriculture? Are they all calculating the sinks the same way? What countries are excluded from these obligations? Surely it’s either all or nothing? Why would one country willingly destroy their economy so that another economy can pick up where they left off?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

If we impose extra costs upon ourselves, that other agrarian economies of a similar GDP do not face, what happens next, hmmm?

Production shifts from New Zealand to, for arguments sake, Argentina.
How are you going to pay for your EnviroSchools then? Your welfare? Health? Where is the money coming from? You haven’t changed the temperature one bit.

Calling for a figure, like 40%, is too stupid for words. If we’re going to participate in this con, then at least have the good sense to call for no more/worse treatment than agrarian based economies of a similar GDP.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Your stereotypes are showing.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Gosh BP… I KNOW you can read. I KNOW I said international support and you even quoted that.

So what in the hell makes you THEN expect that Argentina can get “excluded” from the same process in my analysis?

That was not up to your usual standards.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Doesn’t surprise me. It’s about as likely as a greenie going to a Top Gear show to debate gearboxes.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

> I went to the meeting in Wellington. Except for the numbers I needn’t have bothered. Nobody was arguing the science. Nick Smith gave a PPT that basically accepts the science as I understand it and the scope of the problem.

BJ, I think it was good that you went. Lots of people talked about the importance of emission reductions, but you were one of the few who acknowledged that it isn’t going to be easy. I think it’s important for Nick Smith to hear people talking about the importance of doing what we can in the face of the recognition that it won’t be easy. I’m regretting that I didn’t stand up and say something about the development and exporting of solutions for reducing emissions, because that area wasn’t really covered.

I was surprised by the lack of deniers there.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)