[hrothgar]

baraka, on 2015-November-29, 11:21, said:

You see, every group on each side of the issue is being payed. So I'll always choose the opposing side of the government.

If your opinion is 100% preordained, what information do you provide to a discussion?
You are entirely predictable and entirely uninteresting.

You're just a random braying asshole who fancies himself clever, but demonstrates himself a fool with every posting that he makes.

[hrothgar]

baraka, on 2015-November-29, 11:21, said:

You see, every group on each side of the issue is being payed. So I'll always choose the opposing side of the government.

So, you have pretty much announced that you are a conspiracy theorist who will discount any information that doesn't correspond to your idiosyncratic world view.

What, pray tell, are you hoping to accomplish by posting here?

Its not like there is any chance that you're going to convert anyone to your world view?

Your posts are universally mocked. Al-U-Card (our resident 9/11 truther) is the only one who agrees with you on anything and even he's not dumb enough to say that he will ignore any information that doesn't support his own biases. (Don't get me wrong, he does. But he's not stupid enough to admit it)

[cherdano]

baraka, on 2015-November-29, 11:21, said:

You see, every group on each side of the issue is being payed. So I'll always choose the opposing side of the government.

LOL

[baraka]

And here’s a good trash of the IPCC. She’s not even a scientist, but a journalist doing a good journalistic job…

https://www.youtube....h?v=pruTqY_JLcg


This one by an aviation engineer trashing the IPCC…

https://www.youtube....h?v=oxFm1TXshZY

[Al_U_Card]

Could Mann-made CAGW need a new hockey stick for Christmas?

From Elbert et al 2015, lump of coal for Mikey?

[1eyedjack]

I wanted to share this map. Don't read anything special into it. I just thought it was pretty impressive.

I tried to embed the picture into the post itself without success, so sorry, you will have to click on the link to see it - or not as the case may be:

http://kvisit.com/SxtXWAw

[helene_t]

I always thought climate changes were caused by homosexuality but it appears that the Syrian refugees are to blame:

http://www.pinknews....-latest-floods/

[Al_U_Card]

helene_t, on 2015-December-08, 07:39, said:

I always thought climate changes were caused by homosexuality but it appears that the Syrian refugees are to blame:

http://www.pinknews....-latest-floods/

Sometimes by yo-yos according to the local Imams back in the last real drought they had in the 50's... here it is just yo-yos that blame it on CO2

[Zelandakh]

Al_U_Card, on 2015-December-07, 09:55, said:

From Elbert et al 2015

I could not find the paper quickly so you need to provide a link. You should know that a graph of this type is meaningless without showing where the numbers come from. No doubt there is a reason why the numbers finish in 2000 and the trend line stops ~1990. No doubt there are also good reasons why the shape is quite different from the more commonly given sequences. That you have not provided commentary suggests quite strongly that you are being misleading again.

[Daniel1960]

Al_U_Card, on 2015-December-07, 09:55, said:

Could Mann-made CAGW need a new hockey stick for Christmas?

From Elbert et al 2015, lump of coal for Mikey?

Please tell me you have not chosen the graph for Lago Plomo as your evidence.

https://www.research...Chile_%2847S%29

[PassedOut]

Sting operation uncovers two prominent climate sceptics available for hire by the hour to write reports on the benefits of rising CO2 levels and coal

Quote

In both cases, the professors discussed ways to obscure the funding for the reports, at the request of the fake companies. In Happer’s case, the CO2 Coalition which was to receive the fee suggested he reach out to a secretive funding channel called Donors Trust, in response to a request from the fake Greenpeace entity to keep the source of funds secret. Not disclosing funding in this way is not unlawful under US law.

Also, in an email exchange with the fake business representative, Happer acknowledges that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal – the gold-standard process for quality scientific publication whereby work is assessed by anonymous expert reviewers. “I could submit the article to a peer-reviewed journal, but that might greatly delay publication and might require such major changes in response to referees and to the journal editor that the article would no longer make the case that CO2 is a benefit, not a pollutant, as strongly as I would like, and presumably as strongly as your client would also like,” he wrote.

He suggested an alternative process whereby the article could be passed around handpicked reviewers. “Purists might object that the process did not qualify as a peer review,” he said. “I think it would be fine to call it a peer review.”

Those damnable purists...

[Zelandakh]

Daniel1960, on 2015-December-09, 08:01, said:

Please tell me you have not chosen the graph for Lago Plomo as your evidence.

Thanks Daniel. Now I can see where AIU got his evidence.

[PassedOut]

Good news! 196 countries approve historic climate agreement

Quote

Officials acknowledged that the compromise accord is insufficient, by itself, to prevent global temperatures from rising by more than 2 degrees C [3.6 degrees F] above pre-industrial averages, an increase that many scientists believe is the maximum amount of warming the planet can sustain without massive disruptions in natural ecosystems. But the treaty is structured to allow nations to adopt more ambitious cuts in emissions as new technology becomes available.

Nevertheless, it's a good start for sure.

[y66]

Some highlights from recent NYT news reports:

Representatives of 195 nations reached a landmark deal on Saturday that will commit almost every country to lowering planet-warming carbon emissions. It was six years in the making.

The tough task of delivering on those promises now begins, but scientists are optimistic because of the cooperative tone of the negotiations.

Seven concrete measures have been agreed to. And here’s what they mean for the planet, businesses and politics.

[y66]

Adam Vaughn's take at the Guardian:

Dear BBO Water Cooler friends,

I've just returned from Paris, where exhausted delegates from 195 countries agreed on the first ever universal deal on climate change.

There was no end of superlatives for the Paris Agreement. It would be a turning point in human history, transformative, momentous, historical, according to François Hollande, Ban Ki-moon, Al Gore and the many other dignitaries in the French capital.

This deal would be a game-changer and redefine future economic development, Jim Yong Kim, the World Bank president, told my colleague Fiona Harvey.

The atmosphere at COP21, where the deal was struck after several sleepless days and last minute haggling over a verb in the 31-page text, was unprecedented in two decades of climate talks, according to veterans of the negotiations.

When Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister and president of the talks, announced the deal's adoption and brought down his leaf-shaped gavel, the halls of the summit erupted with applause. UN and French officials laughed, hugged, held hands aloft on stage and gave thumbs-up to the crowd. Even journalists clapped.

Not everyone thinks the deal goes far enough, and the carbon curbs it's linked to are entirely voluntary. But, as Barack Obama put it, the Paris Agreement is the "best chance" we have of stopping dangerous global warming.

Adam Vaughan
Editor, theguardian.com/environment

Reading list:

How the deal was done
The deal at a glance
Countries signal fossil fuel phase-out
The Guardian view on the deal

[billw55]

I still believe that said "best chance" won't be enough. Adaptation will necessary whether we like it or not.

[PassedOut]

billw55, on 2015-December-14, 15:17, said:

I still believe that said "best chance" won't be enough. Adaptation will necessary whether we like it or not.

I'm sure you are right. It remains to be seen how much, and how troublesome, it will be.

[kenberg]

There are an enormous number of thing where I would never be able to hold my own in a discussion. Quantum physics. The poetry of Ezra Pound. Anything from the Middle Ages. And, of course, climate science, I expect I share these failings with many others.

But at some point we make decisions.

This Paris agreement is one such point.

I know that there are times when 195 people, or countries, are wrong and the one dissenter is right. But, to borrow a bit from Damon Runyon, that's not where I place my bet.. We are now signed on, and I strongly suggest we follow through.

[Al_U_Card]

The last minute was spent changing the words "shall" to the words "should" regarding targets, compliance and contributions. The US insisted, the IPCC changed them "accidentally" so Kerry et al actually read the final draft before it was agreed to...even James Hansen calls it bullshit.....

[PassedOut]

Al_U_Card, on 2015-December-14, 18:01, said:

...even James Hansen calls it bullshit.....

Understandably, he thinks it's much too weak, but it was the best deal possible at this time.