Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

(click on the picture to read the news story)

[guest49]

Been waiting for someone to refer to this.
What a load of absolute hogwash!
There have been many times in the past where CO2 levels have dwarfed those at present and the average world temperature remained at around 20 degrees Centigrade

[reality]

..as usual...Putin being a team player for the common good of the team ...but he is the only one in the team


Russia thwarts plan for Antarctic ocean sanctuary, China on board

Russia has again thwarted attempts to create the world's largest ocean sanctuary in Antarctica.

It is the final country opposing the protection of a vast swathe of rich waters from fishing, after a revised international plan won support from China.

The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) ends a 10-day meeting in Hobart, Australia on Friday without the consensus needed for a deal to conserve and manage the marine ecosystems in the Southern Ocean.

While Russia blocked conservation proposals for a fifth consecutive time, delegates welcomed China's support for the revised Marine Protection Area (MPA) in the icy but fertile Ross Sea put forward by the United States and New Zealand.

"China's support for a revised MPA is a major step forward in reaching the consensus required to put workable protections in place for the Ross Sea," New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully said in a statement.

USdelegation leader Evan Bloom told Reuters the ongoing opposition by Russia, which had argued that such a large area closed off to fishing was unnecessary, was frustrating.

"There's also a bit of optimism because now there's just one country left and we're closer than we have ever been before."

The latest proposal includes a new research zone for krill and allows fishing for the tiny creatures that form the basis of the Antarctic food chain in other areas of the expanded 1.5 million square kilometre protected zone.

China has expressed a desire to increase its fishing for krill, used in fish food and human nutritional supplements, throughout the Southern Ocean. Delegates said there were no immediate plans for krill fishing in the Ross Sea and little risk to the vast resource, which is protected by existing quotas and regulations.

The objective of the CCAMLR, which was established by international treaty in 1982, is the conservation of Antarctic marine life "whilst providing for rational use" that takes global food security into account.

The European Union and 24 nations are members of the consensus-based organisation and a further 11 countries have signed its convention.

Antarctica is home to more than 10,000 species including most of the world's penguins, whales, seabirds, colossal squid and Antarctic tooth fish.

"The Ross Sea is one of the last intact, fully functioning marine ecosystems on earth. It's really important to preserve it for its own intrinsic value, " Andrea Kavanagh, a delegate and director of the pro-conservation Pew Charitable Trusts said.

"It's also a really important place for scientists to look at how climate change is affecting healthy ecosystems as opposed to unhealthy ecosystems."

The Southern Ocean represents about 10 per cent of the Earth's surface.

 - Reuters

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

from The Washington Post....

• The Northern Hemisphere’s record-shattering tropical cyclone season, by the numbers

[reality]

 ......ice age coming 


FORGET GLOBAL WARMING, HERE COMES ANOTHER ICE AGE

This will stop the talk dead at Paris as the world’s biggest bunch of con-artists meet to discuss our last chance to save the planet.

Of course the earth might have something to say about that…and the sun.

The Earth could be headed for a ‘mini ice age’ researchers have warned.

A new study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles – and says that between 2020 and 2030 solar cycles will cancel each other out.

This, they say, will lead to a phenomenon known as the ‘Maunder minimum’ – which has previously been known as a mini ice age when it hit between 1646 and 1715, even causing London’s River Thames to freeze over.


The new model of the Sun’s solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun’s 11-year heartbeat.   

It draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone.

Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645, according to the results presented by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.

The model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022.

During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.

‘In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun,’ said Zharkova.

‘Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other.

‘We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum”

Cold kills more humans, far faster than heat ever will. The global warming industry is in for a shock and it is only 15 years away. By that time we will have all worked out what a scam global warming has been.

I can’t wait for the show trials.

 – Daily Mail
by Cameron Slater on November 5, 2015 at 11:30am

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

from The Washington Post....

Scientists say Greenland just opened up a
major new ‘floodgate’ of ice into the ocean

By CHRIS MOONEY | 2:00PM - Thursday, November 12, 2015


Hills protruding from the fog near lower Zachariae Glacier. — Photograph: John Sonntag/NASA.

AS the world prepares for the most important global climate summit yet in Paris later this month, news from Greenland could add urgency to the negotiations. For another major glacier appears to have begun a rapid retreat into a deep underwater basin, a troubling sign previously noticed at Greenland's Jakobshavn Glacier and also in the Amundsen Sea region of West Antarctica.

And in all of these cases, warm ocean waters (NOTE: two separate hotlinks) reaching the deep bases of marine glaciers appears to be a major cause.

The new fast-moving glacier is the Zachariae glacier or Zachariæ Isstrøm, located in the far northeastern part of Greenland. In a new paper in Science, Jeremie Mouginot of the University of California-Irvine and his colleagues find that the ocean-based glacier, which contains 0.5 meters or a foot and a half of potential sea level rise, has begun a rapid retreat, especially since 2012. The glacier has lost fully 95 percent of the ice shelf that used to help stabilize it, they say, and now sports a 75 meter high ice cliff extending above the water (the glacier also extends hundreds of additional meters below it).

“This is sort of the second major floodgate from Greenland that has opened up,” says Eric Rignot of UC-Irvine and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, one of the authors of the study. The first, says Rignot, was the Jakobshavn glacier, Greenland's “fastest” moving, according to a recent study, which is currently based 1,300 meters below sea level and also retreating into a deep basin.

Now, at Zachariae, that seems to be happening again. In combination with its nearby neighbor, Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden glacier, the two glaciers contain a potential 1.1 meter of sea level rise (over 3 feet), so any change here is not good.

“If you see Greenland as a boat, it's like we're taking water from every side now,” says Mouginot.

Furthermore, Mouginot, Rignot and their colleagues note that Zachariae and Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden together form the terminus of the northeast Greenland ice stream, “the only large, dynamic feature that extends continuously deep to the ice sheet interior near Greenland's summit.” Twelve percent of the entire Greenland ice sheet, they say, therefore drains through this region.

Here's a view of the glaciers from above from the USGS/NASA satellite Landsat, which Mouginot annotated:


The Zachariae glacier. — Picture: USGS/NASA Landsat taken on August, 30th 2014; LC80472412014242LGN00 (path: 047, row: 241).

The entire ice sheet of Greenland contains enough ice to raise sea levels some 20 feet. It has been losing ice rapidly in recent years, through a combination of meltwater runoff on the ice sheet's surface — which reaches the sea through complex channels and fissures — and the calving of large icebergs from its glaciers.

Both of these processes have elements that can be pretty spectacular. Atop the ice sheet, vast meltwater lakes can form and then suddenly vanish in a matter of hours, draining rapidly as crevasses open beneath them and they spill into the ice sheet's depths.

At the front ends of marine glaciers, meanwhile, detaching icebergs can tumble and slam back with such force that they knock the glacier itself backwards, and trigger magnitude 5 level earthquakes.

NASA estimates that currently, through the combination of these mechanisms, the Greenland ice sheet is losing several hundred billion tons (or gigatons) per year and raising sea levels by three quarters of a millimeter annually. If so, that would be a little under a third of the total global sea level rise, which is currently 3.24 millimeters per year.


NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) twin satellites have measured the loss of ice mass from Earth's polar
ice sheets since 2002. — Graphic: Nerem/CU-Boulder.

And now, Zachariae glacier may be poised to add to that total.

From 1996 through 2010, the new research finds, Zachariae glacier's grounding line — where the glacier simultaneously meets both the sea-floor and the ocean — retreated inland 3.5 kilometers. But then from 2011 through 2015, it retreated another 3.5 kilometers, a sure sign of acceleration. A key event in letting the glacier speed up seems to have been the collapse of its ice shelf, a buttressing tongue that used to extend out over the fjord in front of the glacier, creating an underwater cavity beneath it. Now, in contrast, Zachariae is basically a steep cliff.

Other ways of measuring the rate of change of the glacier — its rate of thinning, for instance, or its flow speed into the sea — were also observed to be increasing in the new study.

“This study does a nice job of putting together data from multiple sensors to document the ongoing speed up of this glacier. At present its contribution to sea level is relatively small, but there is certainly the potential for it to increase more over time,” says Ian Joughin, a Greenland and polar science expert at the University of Washington, in Seattle, in a comment on the new study.

Joughin notes that thus far, despite the fast retreat, Zachariae is not losing as much ice each year as the Jakobshavn glacier in central western Greenland is losing. The new study reports a loss of 5 gigatons annually for the Zachariae glacier, or 5 billion metric tons, versus 25 to 35 gigatons for Jakobshavn, according to Joughin. Joughin thinks Zachariae may not catch up to the latter, since the basin into which it is retreating is not as deep.

But Rignot notes that with 1.1 meters of potential sea level rise between them, the Zachariae and Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden glaciers together contain about as much ice as the very worrisome glaciers along the Amundsen Sea coast of West Antarctica. Granted, in the latter case the situation is worse because losing those coastal glaciers would then unleash a bigger destabilization of West Antarctica as a whole.

Still, Greenland's glaciers face a kind of double threat — not only changes in the ocean, but also rapidly rising Arctic temperatures, meaning that they can melt both from above and below.


Zachariae Glacier from 31,000 feet. Note the fragments of its remnant ice shelf, clearly visible to seaward. — Photograph: John Sonntag/NASA.

“A disaster is unfolding in slow motion with important sea level rise implications,” says Jason Box, a professor with the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, after reading the paper at The Washington Post's request.

The researchers forecast that for the next 20 to 30 years, Zachariae glacier will retreat quickly, as it is perched on a seabed that slopes downward in elevation, exposing more and more of the glacier to warm water. At the same time, the ice front exposed to the ocean will widen from 19 kilometers across to 50 kilometers across, increasing the amount of ice that will be able to flow out at once.

And most troubling of all in some ways, the glacier's “calving cliff” will grow taller, increasing from the current height of 75 meters above the water level. That's worrying because recent research has suggested that once major glaciers lose their ice shelves, as Zachariae has, they can then form cliffs extending up to 100 meters above sea level which will fail continually, because ice just isn't strong enough to sustain a cliff so high. Zachariae could be moving into that realm.

Finally, the study also notes that while Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden glacier has not been retreating or losing ice nearly as fast, it too could lose its stabilizing ice shelf, and after that, start to move faster. For it, too, appears to be exposed to warmer ocean water.

“One can forsee [the retreat of Zachariae glacier] eventually inducing a race for biggest loser (of ice) between Zachariæ and the other glacier, Nioghalfjerdsfjorden which has a dense chain of islands (Norsk Oer Islands Barrier) blocking [its] free access to the sea,” added Jason Box by e-mail. “Nioghalfjerdsfjorden is thinning so if climate warming remains unchecked, it is just a matter of time until Nioghalfjerdsfjorden disintegrates and the upstream underwater embayment becomes a traffic jam of megabergs shuffling to get out to sea.”

The key question, however — as with all studies of glacial retreats in regions with the potential to cause major sea level rise — is how much and how fast. And that's also, of course, the hardest one to answer.

“The retreat of these marine-based sectors is likely to increase sea-level rise from Greenland for decades to come,” the paper concludes — but it does not specify how rapidly a full loss of the Zachariae glacier could occur.

“Collapse of the entire basin is going to take a long time, it's not going to happen tomorrow,” says Mouginot. “But it's a process, when you start, it's like Jakobshavn — [you don't] see the glacier recovering from that.”

• Chris Mooney reports on science and the environment.

__________________________________________________________________________

Photograph galleries:

 • How climate change is affecting Greenland

 • Frightening, yet beautiful: Greenland's melting glaciers

__________________________________________________________________________

Read more energy & environment stories:

 • Why NASA's so worried that Greenland's melting could speed up

 • Giant earthquakes are shaking Greenland, and scientists just figured out the disturbing reason why

 • This could be the biggest sign yet that the battery revolution is here

 • Peabody Energy, the world’s largest coal company, to disclose more climate risks to investors

 • These could be the first U.S. states to tax carbon — and give their residents a nice paycheck

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/12/scientists-say-greenland-just-opened-up-a-major-new-floodgate-of-ice-into-the-ocean

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

from The Washington Post....

By one measure, this wicked El Niño is the
strongest ever recorded: What it means

By JASON SAMENOW | 2:50PM - Monday, November 16, 2015


NOAA visualization of El Nino.

THE El Niño event of 2015-2016 is making history, wreaking weather havoc around the world and forecast to unleash many weather surprises through the coming winter.

As of today, the warm ocean temperatures that define El Niño have surged to a stunning three degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than normal in the central tropical Pacific, the highest level ever measured.



Many global impacts already

El Niño events, while simply descriptions of ocean temperatures in the tropical Pacific and not storms, have ripple effects on weather patterns all over the world.

“Severe droughts and devastating flooding being experienced throughout the tropics and sub-tropical zones bear the hallmarks of this El Niño, which is the strongest for more than 15 years,” said World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Secretary-General Michel Jarraud in a news release.

The WMO published a long list of many harmful weather impacts for which this El Niño has been implicated, including coral bleaching and the most active season for intense tropical cyclones in the Northern Hemisphere on record, both due to historically warm ocean waters.


According to the World Meteorological Organization, the El Niño of 2015-2016 is shaping up
to be one of the strongest in this past century. Here are the types of weather we can expect
around the world due to this year's El Niño. — World Meteorological Organization/ YouTube.

The WMO published a long list of many harmful weather impacts for which this El Niño has been implicated, including coral bleaching and the most active season for intense tropical cyclones in the Northern Hemisphere on record, both due to historically warm ocean waters.

It also linked El Niño with drought in South East, Asia which has lead to one of the worst wildfire outbreaks in Indonesia on record.

Not all impacts from El Niño have been harmful. For example, it introduced wind shear in the tropical Atlantic which has depressed hurricane activity that might impact North America and may already be increasing precipitation in California, which is suffering from a historic drought.

‘Uncharted territory’

This El Niño is operating in a warmer world in which forecasters have no prior experience predicting its effects.

“This event is playing out in uncharted territory,” Jarraud said. “Our planet has altered dramatically because of climate change, the general trend towards a warmer global ocean, the loss of Arctic sea ice and of over a million square kilometers of summer snow cover in the northern hemisphere.”

“So this naturally occurring El Niño event and human induced climate change may interact and modify each other in ways which we have never before experienced,” he said.

“Even before the onset of El Niño, global average surface temperatures had reached new records. El Niño is turning up the heat even further,” Jarraud added.

While El Niño has certain characteristic effects which we have discussed at length in the past (for the D.C. area, and the U.S. and beyond), the background warmth adds a potential element of surprise heading into the winter months.

Comparing this year's El Niño vs. 1997-1998, and what it portends

While today's unsurpassed ocean temperature measurement in the central tropical Pacific made history, it is too soon to know if this toasty temperature reading is just a blip or a signal. In order for this El Niño to officially pass 1997-1998's event as the strongest on record, the warm waters would need to be sustained near these level for three months.


Click on image to play video.

“A week of sea surface temperature-only data isn't enough to say this is a record,” said NOAA climate analyst Michelle L'Heureux in an email.

Forecasters expect strong El Niño levels to persist through the winter, but it may be peaking now and about to begin a gradual decay. However, the event's recent and projected intensity may be enough for this event to surpass 1997-1998.

“Judging from the trajectory of SST anomalies … it is likely that one of the late-year three-month average … sea surface temperature values in 2015 will end up upending 1997's record warmth and claim for the 2015 the title as strongest El Niño event on record,” wrote Weather Underground meteorologist Jeff Masters.

Every El Niño has its own signature and, so far, what sets this one apart is the amount of warm water it has generated across a vast expanse of the Pacific — spanning both the eastern and central part of the ocean basin. While it hasn't been as intense in the eastern tropical Pacific as 1997-1998, its warm waters have extended farther west.



“So, in terms of the eastern Pacific, this event is weaker than 1997, but in terms of the central Pacific, the present event is stronger,” said Paul Roundy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Albany.

Phil Klotzbach, a tropical weather researcher from Colorado State University, says a powerful eastward push of water known as a Kelvin wave may lead to some warming in the eastern Pacific over the next few weeks.

The implications of warm water covering such a vast area of the Pacific in terms of weather patterns in the U.S. are unclear.

Sometimes El Niño events which have their warmest waters in the central rather than eastern Pacific favor less precipitation in California and colder conditions in the Northeast U.S. than events with warmer water to the east. But researchers aren't convinced this event will behave like a central Pacific El Niño, sometimes described as a Modoki event.

“Although it has large sea surface temperature anomalies across the central basin, it is NOT a central Pacific El Niño event,” Roundy said. “The present circulation response pattern and model forecasts agree that circulation outcomes are likely to be more like strong east Pacific events, because convection is aligned well east of the dateline.”

Klotzbach along with two climate researchers at NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, Jon Gottschalck and Stephen Baxter, said they agreed with Roundy's view via email.

Jason Furtado, a professor of meteorology at the University of Oklahoma, said while he concurred this El Niño is not a central Pacific event, the very warm waters observed there might mean the winter bears some of its characteristics. Furtado also cautioned El Niño “is but one ingredient for our winter climate — its interactions with other processes and climate patterns will also be important to monitor.”

• Jason Samenow is currently The Washington Post's weather editor. A native Washingtonian, Jason has been a weather enthusiast since age 10.

__________________________________________________________________________

Read more on this topic:

 • The Northern Hemisphere’s record-shattering tropical cyclone season, by the numbers

 • Indonesian fires are pouring huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere

 • Is the near-record El Niño already chipping away at the California, western drought?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/11/16/by-one-measure-this-wicked-el-nino-is-the-strongest-ever-recorded-what-it-means

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

• Preparing New Zealand for rising seas: Certainty and Uncertainty

(a report released today by the government's Commissioner for the Environment)



• Bill English rejects call to budget for the costs of sea level rises

Billy-boy English shows how inept he is as minister of finance by sticking his head in the sand and exposing NZ to a financial calamity.

Not surprising when you think about it as Billy-boy finally managed to produce a surplus after seven years of deficits, only to sink back into a deficit again after only twenty-three days of surplus.

• Government accounts dip into the red

Talk about an incompetent idiot, eh?

I suppose there will be a few morons around who will be too stupid to see Billy-boy for the inept failure he is.

Who knows? There is even a possibility someone of that description may pop out of the woodwork at this group....you never know, eh?



As an aside, reading through the commissioner's comprehensive report, it would appear that Napier could end up back at square one, as it was before the 1931 Hawke's Bay earthquake, when the place was a hill with two narrow spits surrounded by the sea on two sides, and by lagoon and swamp on the other sides.

Oh well, those Napier folks could always move to Hastings....

[reality]

Yes...sea front property values will be dropping like a rock..please let me know of anyboby wanting to sell some...(in a hurry)

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

I know of plenty of places at Haumoana (in Hawke's Bay) going for sale.

I reckon you'd fit right in there....you could watch your neighbour's homes disappear in the sea before the same happened to you.

And it isn't a “way in the future” event either, as a large number of homes have been taken by the sea there over the past few years.

So, go on....buy a seaside Haumoana property....I dare you!!

Then I can laugh as the sea takes away the money you have invested in the property.

[reality]

kj..."I know of plenty of places at Haumoana (in Hawke's Bay) going for sale."


..mmm..only 6 properties there for sale on trademe..dont appear to any near the sea...perhaps you are mistaken..is that possible

[reality]

"Our analysis found that 483 power companies have proposed new coal-fired plants."

..makes you realise that what ever we do here will have very, very little to do with the future if climate change rates...

..just heard on one news that india plan to start a new coal fired power station every month until 2020

..its going to be a race....nuclear war or climate change...that will make big changes on the planet..but we can at least be safe in the knowledge that in is all the evolutionary process doing what it always has and always will do





Global Coal Risk Assessment

Data Analysis and Market Research

by Ailun Yang and Yiyun Cui - November 2012

         
Coal-fired power plants are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions—one that could be increasing significantly globally. This working paper analyzes information about proposed new coal-fired plants and other market trends in order to assess potential future risks to the global climate.

KEY FINDINGS
According to IEA estimates, global coal consumption reached 7,238 million tonnes in 2010. China accounted for 46 percent of consumption, followed by the United States (13 percent), and India (9 percent).

According to WRI’s estimates, 1,199 new coal-fired plants, with a total installed capacity of 1,401,278 megawatts (MW), are being proposed globally. These projects are spread across 59 countries. China and India together account for 76 percent of the proposed new coal power capacities.

New coal-fired plants have been proposed in 10 developing countries: Cambodia, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Laos, Morocco, Namibia, Oman, Senegal, Sri Lanka, and Uzbekistan. Currently, there is limited or no capacity for domestic coal production in any of these countries.

Our analysis found that 483 power companies have proposed new coal-fired plants. With 66 proposed projects, Huaneng (Chinese) has proposed the most, followed by Guodian (Chinese), and NTPC (Indian).

The “Big Five” Chinese power companies (Datang, Huaneng, Guodian, Huadian, and China Power Investment) are the world’s biggest coal-fired power producers, and are among the top developers of proposed new coal-fired plants.

State-owned power companies play a dominant role in proposing new coal-fired plant projects in China, Turkey, Indonesia, Vietnam, South Africa, Czech Republic and many other countries.

Chinese, German, and Indian power companies are notably increasingly active in transnational coal-fired project development.

According to IEA estimates, the global coal trade rose by 13.4 percent in 2010, reaching 1,083 million tonnes.

The demands of the global coal trade have shifted from the Atlantic market (driven by Germany, the United Kingdom, France and the United States) to the Pacific market (driven by Japan, China, South Korea, India and Taiwan). In response to this trend, many new infrastructure development projects have been proposed.

Motivated by the growing Pacific market, Australia is proposing to increase new mine and new port capacity up to 900 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) — three times its current coal export capacity.

[Im2Sexy4MyPants]

 

[guest49]

LOL.  40 years ago, the muppets informed us that global warming was going to raise the sea level 6 metres by the year 2000....

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

from the Los Angeles Times....

Bill Gates may do more to fix climate crisis than world's politicians

By DAVID HORSEY | 5:00AM - Wednesday, December 02, 2015



WHEN Bill Gates was a nerdy kid growing up in Seattle, he gained neighborhood notoriety at Little League baseball games by doing standing jumps into garbage cans. At the time, few would have identified that skinny kid as the guy who would one day save the world.

The software industry Gates built certainly changed the universe of business and personal communication, while the fortune he has spent through the Gates Foundation has saved countless lives in developing countries. It is his latest endeavor, though, that could be the one that rescues us all.

On Monday, at the United Nations climate summit in Paris that has drawn together leaders from most of the countries on Earth, Gates unveiled his plan to create a multibillion-dollar fund to pay for research on clean and renewable energy. Teaming with 19 governments and 28 billionaires from 10 nations, Gates hopes to do what the planet's politicians have failed to do up to this point: dramatically alter the global energy system to replace fossil fuels with power sources that do not contribute to climate change.

The vast majority of the world’s scientists — excluding those in thrall to oil and coal companies — have determined that the increasing level of CO² in the atmosphere is the culprit in rising global temperatures. The evidence of this is becoming more and more obvious as polar ice caps melt, glaciers recede, the oceans get warmer and planetary weather patterns become more extreme. According to the scientists, if humanity continues with business as usual, the result will be calamitous: widespread drought and famine triggering massive, desperate human migrations, major cities and island nations flooded by rising seas, and the catastrophic extinction of countless terrestrial and oceanic species.

Most world leaders have accepted the scientific consensus and know it is their duty to do something while they still can to avoid the worst possible outcomes. That is why they have come together this week in Paris. However, it will be no surprise if narrow national interests override the common interest — it always has before — with the result that a final summit agreement falls well short of what is needed to stop the slide toward disaster.

President Obama has made climate change the signature issue of his final two years in office, but went into the Paris summit handicapped by the political opposition he faces at home. American delegates will be pushing for a climate plan that is not a formal treaty because the Obama administration knows it cannot get the two-thirds vote in the U.S. Senate needed to ratify a treaty. Anything less than a binding treaty, though, weakens any deal. Obama will also have a tough time following through with the inevitable pledge of American dollars to help pay for action on climate change. That spending would also need the approval of the Senate, as well as the House, and both houses of Congress are in the hands of a political party that pretends climate change is not real.

Some Republican politicians — such as Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe, who carried a snowball onto the Senate floor to prove it was cold outside — seem to truly believe the science is wrong. Others, like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, are mainly concerned with protecting the coal and oil industries that have funded their political careers. Whether their motivations stem from ignorance or immorality, conservative Republicans have the power to slow, if not stop, progress toward cleaner energy and lowered CO² emissions.

Left to politics, the climate problem is likely only to get worse — especially if Republicans get control of the presidency, as well as Congress — but technological solutions might still save the day. That is what Gates is betting on. He is proposing a detour past politics. If he and his fellow billionaires, including California billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and Amazon Chief Executive Jeff Bezos, can provide the seed money to pay for energy innovation and if forward-thinking entrepreneurs following in the footsteps of Tesla's Elon Musk can show that clean energy is not only good for the planet but good for jobs and the economy, the old fossil-fuels-based business model will falter and die.

The only question is how long that process will take. Way too much time has already been wasted in denial, duplicity and demagoguery. The Gates initiative may be the prod that gets us to work building a new world energy regime before the old one takes us over a cliff.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-gates-may-fix-climate-20151201-story.html

[reality]

...mmm... meanwhile India open a brand new coal fired power station every month until 2020...probably just 1 of those will counteract whatever we could do

..whatever we do in innocent little NZ will make very, very little difference...the planet is doomed..lets just make the most of it...

..while it lasts

[Im2Sexy4MyPants]

A lot of shit is coming our way

The global warming scam and the TPP are really all about creating a soviet communist style totalitarian unelected single world government that will be controlled by the  filthy rich elite, it will destroy the lives of and even kill off some of the billions of people all over the planet and create a world where the elite are lords over everyone's existence.

in other words it will be the best tyrannical communist government that money can buy,for us zero freedom and we will all pay bigtime for our own enforced enslavement where we will be like the poor people in the film Hunger Games.

sadly a lot of people on this planet are too stupid to do their own research so they won't understand this until its too late and the penny drops. 



Bill Gates: Only Socialism Can Save Us From Climate Change



“Representative democracy” has failed; the private sector is “inept”; and only bigger government – led by China and the US – has the power to save the world from climate change.

So says Bill Gates in a dogmatic but somewhat confused interview with The Atlantic in which he simultaneously pours scorn on green tech solutions but insists that more of them are needed – on a scale bigger than the Manhattan Project – if we are to deal successfully with a problem whose nature he admits may well have been exaggerated by environmentalists.

Confused? You should be:

Here are some of things we learn about the mysteries of Gates’s mind.

Gates has no patience for climate change deniers – Republican politicians in particular – but is far too grand to explain why they’re wrong.

He didn’t evince much patience for the argument that American politicians couldn’t agree even on whether climate change is real, much less on how to combat it. “If you’re not bringing math skills to the problem,” he said with a sort of amused asperity, “then representative democracy is a problem.”

Gates made his fortune in what used to be one of the least regulated sectors of the US economy. But still he has little faith in free markets as a driving force for innovation.

“Yes, the government will be somewhat inept,” he said brusquely, swatting aside one objection as a trivial statement of the obvious. “But the private sector is in general inept. How many companies do venture capitalists invest in that go poorly? By far most of them.”

He thinks the forthcoming UN climate talks in Paris are largely a waste of space because they’re just not going to be radical enough.

It’s good to have people making commitments. It’s really good. But if you really look at those commitments—which are not binding, but even if you say they will all be achieved—they fall dramatically short of the reductions required to reduce CO2 emissions enough to prevent a scenario where global temperatures rise 2 degrees Celsius. I mean, these commitments won’t even be a third of what you need.

Yes, you read that correctly. On the basis of no evidence he is prepared to venture in the interview, Bill Gates is agitating for the near total decarbonization of the world economy.

To head off a rise in average global temperatures of 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels—the goal set by international agreement—Gates believes that by 2050, wealthy nations like China and the United States, the most prodigious belchers of greenhouse gases, must be adding no more carbon to the skies.

Private enterprise cannot achieve this because there is no financial incentive to do so. (It appears not to have occurred to Gates that the reason there is no financial incentive because there is no genuine need and therefore no demand. If there had maybe he would have been a green tech billionaire rather than a software billionaire).

Well, there’s no fortune to be made.

Bill Gates is not totally stupid. He knows electric cars suck.

People think, Oh, well, I’ll just get an electric car. There are places where if you buy an electric car, you’re actually increasing CO2 emissions, because the electricity infrastructure is emitting more CO2 than you would have if you’d had a gasoline-powered car.

But he does, sort of, believe that government has access to a magic money tree and that it does something called ‘investment’ – which isn’t at all the same, oh no, as splurging taxpayers’ dollars on pointless crap like Solyndra.

Realistically, we may not get more than a doubling in government funding of energy R&D—but I would love to see a tripling, to $18 billion a year from the U.S. government to fund basic research alone. Now, as a percentage of the government budget, that’s not gigantic.

Bill Gates thinks that heavily-subsidized green tech like wind and solar has worked really well. Then he goes onto admit in virtually the same breath that, no actually, it hasn’t worked well at all. Go figure.

Wind has grown super-fast, on a very subsidized basis. Solar, off a smaller base, has been growing even faster—again on a highly subsidized basis. But it’s absolutely fair to say that even the modest R&D that’s been done, and the various deployment incentives that are there, have worked well. Now, unfortunately, solar photovoltaic is still not economical, but the biggest problem of all is this intermittency. That is, we need energy 24 hours a day. So, putting aside hydro—which unfortunately can’t grow much—the primary new zero-CO2 sources are intermittent. Now, nuclear is a non-CO2 source, but it’s had its own problems in terms of costs, big safety problems, making sure you can deal with the waste, making sure the plutonium isn’t used to make weapons. So my view is that the biggest problem for the two lead candidates is that storage looks to be so difficult. It’s kind of ironic: Germany, by installing so much rooftop solar, has it that both their coal plants and their rooftop solar are available in the summer, and the price of power during the day actually goes negative—they pay people to take it. Then at night the only source is the coal, and because the energy companies have to recover their capital costs, they either raise the price because they’re not getting any return for the day, or they slowly go bankrupt.

In fact, Bill Gates thinks that all those greenies bigging up solar are a bunch of liars.

They have this statement that the cost of solar photovoltaic is the same as hydrocarbon’s. And that’s one of those misleadingly meaningless statements. What they mean is that at noon in Arizona, the cost of that kilowatt-hour is the same as a hydrocarbon kilowatt-hour. But it doesn’t come at night, it doesn’t come after the sun hasn’t shone, so the fact that in that one moment you reach parity, so what? The reading public, when they see things like that, they underestimate how hard this thing is.

Bill Gates – did he make this clear? – thinks green tech is a crappy sector to invest in. That’s why he thinks it’s so important that Government steps in to force the private sector to invest in it. Because otherwise, obviously, it wouldn’t. Free markets: so totally overrated, aren’t they?

I think dozens and dozens of approaches should be funded at the R&D level, and then people like myself, who can afford to take big risks with start-up companies, should—because of climate change—be willing to put some number of billions into the spin-offs that will come out of that government-funded activity.You can’t expect that it will be like a digital thing. So you do have to bring a more patient investor, and even a lower return threshold, to this than to other things.

 

Bill Gates thinks the environmentalists could be talking nonsense

The heating levels have not tracked the climate models exactly, and the skeptics have had a heyday with that. It’s all within the error-bar range. To me, it’s pretty clear that there’s nothing that relieves this as a big problem. But when people act like we have this great certainty, they somewhat undermine the credibility. There’s a lot of uncertainty in this, but on both the good and the bad side.

By overclaiming, or even trying to ascribe current things more to climate change than to other effects, environmentalists lend weight to the skeptics.

But it’s certainly not going to stop Bill Gates talking nonsense, no sirree, about the necessity of taking radical steps to deal with this potentially non-existent problem.

That’s why….we need innovation that gives us energy that’s cheaper than today’s hydrocarbon energy, that has zero CO2 emissions, and that’s as reliable as today’s overall energy system. And when you put all those requirements together, we need an energy miracle. That may make it seem too daunting to people, but in science, miracles are happening all the time.

Bill Gates: wouldn’t have been so much better for all of us if he’d just bought up some remote island in the Pacific, hollowed out some volcano to build his secret base, and just worked on something relatively innocuous like plotting a war between China and the US guaranteed to result in mutual nuclear annihilation? This climate change nonsense of his is so much more dangerous…

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/02/bill-gates-socialism-can-save-us-climate-change/

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

[guest49]

The Beatles mention the real reason.


Good luck with cutting its emissions...............

[Im2Sexy4MyPants]

http://www.nipccreport.org/

The Coming Revelation Of The 'Global Warming' Fraud Resembles The Obamacare Lie

The second shoe is preparing to drop to shatter the world view of so-called Progressives.  Coming, global revelations will demonstrate the fraud behind the theory of man-caused, catastrophic, global warming, just like the real world has shattered the falsehoods behind Obamacare.

That is because the underlying reason for both frauds was the same: to expand government power.  Enablers went along with the fraud in both cases for the same underlying reason – political correctness.  In both cases, going along with the cause for the assumed public good without raising questions was considered the politically correct thing to do for all “good” people.  Soon the enablers in both cases will have to pay the price for participating in and perpetuating the fraud.

This past weekend, Peggy Noonan summarized the Obamacare fraud in the Wall Street Journal, writing,

“They said if you liked your insurance you could keep your insurance—but that’s not true. It was never true! They said if you liked your doctor you could keep your doctor—but that’s not true. It was never true! They said they would cover everyone who needed it, and instead people who had coverage are losing it—millions of them! They said they would make insurance less expensive—but it’s more expensive! Premium shock, deductible shock. They said don’t worry, your health information will be secure, but instead the whole setup looks like a hacker’s holiday. Bad guys are apparently already going for your private information.”

That could have been drawn precisely from my commentary in this space last week.

The fact that Obamacare was always about power and not people is perfectly illustrated by the case of California resident Edie Littlefield Sundby.  Since her gall bladder cancer was discovered 7 years ago, her private insurance company, United Healthcare, has spent $1.2 million to save her life.  Edie explains that the insurance company, “has never once questioned any treatment or procedure recommended by my medical team. The company pays a fair price to the doctors and hospitals, on time, and is responsive to the emergency treatment requirements of late-stage cancer. Its caring people in the claims office have been readily available to talk to me and my providers.”But Obamacare is driving United Health Care out of business altogether in California.  So Edie is one of millions who have recently received an insurance cancellation letter, effective December 31.  Just go to the Covered California Obamacare Exchange, which is working just as intended Obama has said, and get your Obamacare, “progressive” Obama apologists say.  But there is no insurance on the highly touted Covered California Obamacare Exchange that includes coverage for the team of doctors that have kept her alive for a period with just a 2% probability, who range from her hometown of San Diego, to Stanford University in northern California, to Houston.  Even though United Healthcare did, for an affordable price, before Obamacare.

But the response from the Obama White House has not been “progressive” concern for Edie.  Instead, White House operatives have disparaged her.  Now that the federal government has raised spending, taxes, and regulatory burdens by trillions to take over health care, the “progressives” are not worried about Edie.Similarly, the theory of man-caused, catastrophic, global warming is embraced not because of any “science,” (that sham is for the “useful idiots,”), but because it is a justification for a government takeover of the energy industry, with massive increases in regulation, taxes and government spending.  The United Nations loves it because it inspires fantasies of the UN growing up to be a world government, with real government powers of global taxation, spending and regulation, all “to save the planet.”  Scientists who go along with the cause are rewarded not only with praise for their worthy social conscience, but also with altogether billions in hard, cold cash (government and environmental grants), for their cooperation in helping to play the “useful idiots.”  Moreover, many academic scientists are “progressives” themselves, and so favor sharp increases in government spending, taxes and regulation, because they are certain they know how to run your life better than you do.

That is what the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is all about.  On September 27, the IPCC issued the final version of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) for its fifth comprehensive Assessment Report (AR-5) since 1992 on the supposed science of anthropogenic, catastrophic, global warming.  But the IPCC has intellectual competition now.  A peer group of independent, private sector scientists has organized the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).  Earlier in September, the NIPCC issued its own comprehensive, voluminous report on the science of climate change, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, published by the Heartland Institute.

If you are a true believer in anthropogenic, catastrophic, global warming, you don’t know what you are talking about unless you also have at least looked through the hundreds of pages of calm, dispassionate science in Climate Change Reconsidered II, which also reviews the peer-reviewed literature on climate change.  Go ahead, I dare you.  What are you afraid of?

Now 4 lead contributing authors of Climate Change Reconsidered II, Drs. Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, and Willie Soon, have issued a Scientific Critique of IPCC’s 2013 “Summary for Policymakers.”  They find that “the new SPM reveals the IPCC has retreated from at least 11 alarmist claims promulgated in its previous reports or by scientists prominently associated with the IPCC.  The SPM also contains at least 13 misleading or untrue statements, and 11 further statements that are phrased in such a way that they mislead readers or misrepresent important aspects of the science.”

For example, the authors report, “The IPCC concedes for the first time that a 15 year long period of no significant warming occurred since 1998 despite a 7% rise in carbon dioxide (CO2).”  The authors explain, “The statement represents a significant revision in the IPCC thinking, because their concern about dangerous warming rests upon the assumption that temperature increases will proceed in parallel fashion with CO2 increases.”  Climate Change Reconsidered II documents that the same official temperature records used by the IPCC going back over 100 years, and proxy temperature records going back deep into the geologic time scale, show that temperatures have not changed in parallel with CO2 levels.

Central to the IPCC’s argument for anthropogenic, catastrophic global warming is its dozens of global climate models and their projections of growing global temperatures over time.  But the SPM now concedes that these models have failed to project the now admitted lack of warming over the last 15 years.  The draft of the SPM circulated in June stated quite accurately that the “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 to 15 years.”  The final draft released in September covers the same by saying, “There are…differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012).”

Nevertheless, despite this failure of the underlying climate models, the SPM states, “It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951–2010.”  The prior Assessment Report issued in 2007 had said that this human contribution to global warming was only “very likely.”  So as the IPCC climate models admittedly diverge from reality, the IPCC conclusion is that the human contribution to global warming (which it admits has not been happening for quite a while now) is only all the more likely.

Indeed, the models have not been validated by past recorded temperatures, and, therefore, cannot be a sound basis for costly regulation to counter global warming, as President Obama’s EPA is now pursuing.  As the NIPCC’s recent report states, “We conclude the current generation of global climate models are unable to make accurate projections of climate even 10 years ahead, let alone the 100 year period that has been adopted by policy planners.  The output of such models should therefore not be used to guide public policy formulation until they have been validated and shown to have predictive value.”

The SPM also concedes that the Antarctic ice cap “increased…(by) 1.2%–1.8% per decade between 1979 and 2012.”  So even the UN’s IPCC now concedes that the South Pole’s ice cap has been increasing all along, rather than melting.  The increase in Antarctic sea ice now totals about 1 million square kilometers.  In fact, the extent of Antarctic sea ice is now the greatest ever measured.

Arctic sea ice has historically fluctuated in regular cycles.  While it did decline during the 1978 to 1998 period, that decline has now reversed, falsifying alarmist predictions that the North Pole would be free of ice by 2013.  Globally, some glaciers have been melting and receding.  Others have been growing and expanding.  Overall, the total extent of global sea ice has not been declining at any enhanced rate since the end of the Little Ice Age around 150 years ago.

But the SPM misleads as to concerns over rising sea levels, stating, “It is very likely that there is a substantial anthropogenic contribution to the global mean sea level rise since the 1970s.”   No, actually, it is not likely at all.  The NIPCC authors state, “sea level rise has been occurring since long before the human era, and at rates higher than those observed in human history.”  Indeed, during that human era, “sea level rise over the past several centuries has averaged about 7 inches, and continues to rise at that rate with no evidence of acceleration,” as Larry Bell reported for Forbes on October 15.

The SPM also misleads when it states, “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s many of the observed changes are unprecedented.”  The NIPCC authors explain, “Though the IPCC’s favored temperature record (HadCRUT) depicts a rise of 0.4 deg. C since 1950, other temperature records show little or no warming at all in the second half of the twentieth century.”  These include the US GISS land surface record, sea surface temperature records, including Hadley NMAT, atmosphere temperature records, such as Hadley radiosonde and satellite MSU, and land surface temperature proxies.

The NIPCC authors conclude in response to the SPM,

“It is likely that the HadCRUT temperature record underestimates the impact of urban heat islands [in falsely exaggerating] surface temperature records….[Moreover,] the post-1950 warming shown by the Hadley record is of about the same magnitude and rate as the known natural warming between 1910 and 1940, and is therefore not unprecedented.”

Bell added in his October 15 commentary, “In reality, the earth has been warming ever since it began thawing out from the Little Ice Age around 1850, and temperatures are still cooler than those that have prevailed about 90% of the time over the past 10,000 years.”

Among Climate Change Reconsidered II’s conclusions,

“neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979-2000) lay outside natural variability, nor was it in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth’s climate history.  Furthermore, solar forcings of temperature change are likely more important than is currently recognized, and evidence is lacking that a 2 degree C increase in temperature (of whatever cause) would be globally harmful.”

Indeed, the only demonstrated impact of increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 so far have been positive for human life, if not all life on the planet.  In particular, that includes increased agricultural output, valued at $3.2 trillion over the period 1961 to 2011, and probable slight resulting increases in global temperatures.Richard Lindzen is Professor of Atmospheric Sciences emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  There is no climate scientist in the world with a better professional pedigree than Lindzen.  It was his apparent understanding of the quality of the climate science peddled by the IPCC and its cohorts that led him to write his recent article, “Science in the Public Square: Global Climate Alarmism and Historical Precedents.”

Lindzen writes,

“Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly.  It also has been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions.  How can one escape from the Iron Triangle (ambiguous statements from scientists translated into alarmism by advocates and the media, with politicians responding by feeding the scientists taxpayer money) when it produces flawed science that is enormously influential and is forcing catastrophic public policy.

There are past examples.  In the U.S. in the early 20th century, the eugenics movement had coopted the science of human genetics and was driving a political agenda.  The movement achieved the Immigration Restriction Act of 1923, as well as forced sterilization laws in several states.  The movement became discredited by Nazi atrocities, but the American consequences survived well into the 1960s.

In the Soviet Union, Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (1898-1976) promoted the Lamarckian view of the inheritance of acquired characteristics.  It fit with Stalin’s megalomaniacal insistence on the ability of society to remold nature….However, opposition within the Soviet Union remained strong, despite ruthless attempts to suppress dissenters….

Global warming differs from the previous two affairs.  Global warming has become a religion.  A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint.  There may be a growing realization that this may not add that much meaning to one’s life, but outside the pages of the Wall Street Journal, this has not been widely promulgated, and people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal.

In contrast to Lysenkoism, Global Warming has a global constituency, and has successfully coopted almost all of institutional science.  However, the cracks in the scientific claims for catastrophic warming are, I think, becoming much harder for the supporters to defend.”

Lindzen concludes that the previous examples of the eugenics movement and Lysenkoism lasted 20 to 30 years, which is about equal to the run of the global warming movement since its American rollout in 1988.  He suggests that the global warming movement may be just about spent as well.

Coming revelations concerning the scientific fraud behind global warming will confirm Lindzen’s estimation.  The first of these relate to the growing, ultimately yawning disparity between the temperature projections of the IPCC’s 73 global climate models, and the observed temperatures in the real world, over the past 30 years, as shown in the graph below.  The actual atmospheric temperatures as recorded by U.S. weather satellites and weather balloons are shown by the two lines at the bottom of the graph, connecting the squares or the circles.  The average of the temperature models is the solid line going through the spaghetti of lines representing the projections of each of the models, well above the real world temperatures, with the divergence growing and growing.  The source of that graph is Dr. Roy Spencer, award winning NASA scientist monitoring the global atmospheric temperatures as measured by U.S. satellites, and a contributor to Climate Change Reconsidered, as produced for testimony before the Environment and Public Works Committee of the United States Senate.  Spencer, R.W. 2013. Statement to the Environment and Public Works Committee, 19 July 2013, Washington, DC.

This divergence is already approaching a full degree Celsius, which already demonstrates that the models are more fairy tale than science.  But in the coming years that divergence will only grow and grow, ultimately not only discrediting but falsifying the theory of anthropogenic, catastrophic global warming.

The second relates to the growing specter of global cooling.  Lawrence Solomon reports in the Financial Post in an article published on October 31, “Global Cooling Consensus”:

“‘Real Risk of a Maunder Minimum ‘Little Ice Age’ announced the BBC this week, in reporting startling findings by Professor Mike Lockwood of Reading University.  ‘Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years [raising the risk of a new Little Ice Age]…, explained Paul Hudson, the BBC’s climate correspondent.  If Earth is spared a new Little Ice Age, a severe cooling as ‘occurred in the early 1800s, which also had its fair share of cold winters and cold summers is, according to him, ‘more likely than not to happen.”

Solomon adds,

“During the Little Ice Age, the Sun became eerily quiet, as measured by a near disappearance of the sunspots typically present.  Solar scientists around the world today see similar conditions, giving impetus to the widespread view that cold times lie ahead.  ‘When we have had periods where the Sun has been quieter than usual we tend to get these much harsher winters’ echoed climatologist Dennis Wheeler from Sunderland University, in a Daily Express article entitled ‘Now get ready for an ‘Ice Age’ as experts warn of Siberian winter ahead.’”

Solomon cites further authorities, continuing,

“In a paper published this month by the American Meteorological Society, the authors demolish the claims by IPCC scientists that the Sun could not be responsible for major shifts in climate.  In a post on her website this month, Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, all but mocked the IPCC assertions that solar variations don’t matter.  Among the many studies and authorities she cited: the National Research Council’s recent report, ‘The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,’ and NASA, former home of global warming guru James Hansen.”

Solomon reported that in a January press release, “To bolster the argument that solar activity could explain the Little Ice Age as well as lesser changes, NASA listed some dozen authorities, including Dan Lubin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, whose research on other sun-like stars in the Milky Way suggest that ‘the Sun’s influence could be overpowering.’”

Solomon further reports, “In the last two years, the scientific community’s openness to examining the role of the Sun in climate change – as opposed to the role of man – has exploded.”  That includes “scientists at the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory, whose predictions in the last decade that global cooling would start in this decade are looking especially prescient.”  It also includes George Kukla of Columbia University, who explained in 2007, “None of us expected uninterrupted continuation of the [cooling] trend [of the 1960s and 1970s].  Solomon concludes, “Global warming always precedes an ice age, Kukla explained.  The warming we saw in the 1980s and 1990s, in other words, was expected all along, much as the calm before the storm.”

In other words, global warming is starting to sound a lot like Obama promising that under Obamacare if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance, or if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, or that Obamacare would cause the cost of health insurance to go down, or provide for universal coverage.

The bottom line is that America dodged a bullet in the 2000 Florida recount.  Because in an October 29 Wall Street Journal commentary, Al Gore sounds like he has gone mad with his grand delusions as personal global savior.  Gore tries to warn investors about a coming subprime carbon asset bubble, where fossil fuel investments will be dangerously overpriced, because most investors are overlooking the risk of global warming to investments in fossil fuel assets.  He cites a “Carbon Budget” calculated by the “International Energy Agency,” which supposedly means that “at least two-thirds of fossil fuel reserves will not be monetized…, creating ‘stranded carbon assets.”  He warns investors to look out for “sociopolitical pressures (e.g., fossil-fuel divestment campaigns, environmental advocacy, grass roots protests and changing public opinion) [which] could create an environment in which carbon-intensive businesses could lose their ‘license to operate,’ thereby stranding assets.”

All of which spells opportunity to me.  By all means, investors, look out for those fossil fuel divestment campaigns and grass roots protests, which would signal that fossil fuel investments had become artificially undervalued.  In other words, take such developments as buy signals.  And if any of you want to divest yourselves of the social burden of fossil fuel investments, just send title to those investments to me, care of Forbes magazine.http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/11/12/the-coming-revelation-of-the-global-warming-fraud-resembles-the-obamacare-lie/

[reality]

Thankyou..

..have they cancelled global warming due to lack of interest?

[reality]

Global warming agreement signed by 195 countries last night in Paris..

..seemed cooler this morning😜

...but seriously....India start up a new coal fired power station every month until 2020

[reality]

"Mr Shaw said the agreement was not perfect "but it's frankly an incredible achievement".

..wow...even the greens like it...must be be good



Government hail historic climate deal

1:19 PM Sunday Dec 13, 2015

The New Zealand Government has hailed a historic deal on climate change, saying it is "the first truly global agreement on climate change".

Climate Change Minister Tim Groser described the agreement as a huge and historic step forward because all countries had agreed to take ambitious action on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

United Nations officials and delegations from around the world concluded the deal in Paris this morning after two weeks of negotiations.

The Paris Agreement, which includes the biggest emitters the United States and China, set out a path to reducing emissions and limiting global temperature rise to 2C this century.

Low-lying Pacific countries which were worst-affected by climate change had argued for a 1.5C target, and this was included as an aspirational goal in the agreement.

Mr Groser said the significance of 185 countries making emissions reduction pledges over the course of the year could not be understated.

"The Paris Agreement banks these," he said. "While they collectively won't solve global warming in one hit, the new agreement sets up a process for regular, five-yearly updates.

"This sets the world on a clear pathway to a lower-carbon future."

Mr Groser said incredible diplomatic efforts by France had allowed countries to bridge seemingly impossible divides.

Labour and Greens MPs were part of the New Zealand delegation in Paris.

Labour's climate change spokeswoman Megan Woods said the agreement provided a strong framework for the world to take greater action in addressing climate change.

"The language in the text is a triumph of French diplomacy and contains some deliberate ambiguous language needed to reach agreement," she said.

Ms Woods said the goal of limiting temperature rise to 2C, or possibly 1.5C, was more ambitious than many people were expecting when talks kicked off two weeks ago.

"New Zealand is going to have to think about how it can contribute to the higher ambition achieved in Paris."

Green Party co-leader James Shaw also welcomed the Paris deal, and said New Zealand must now honour its commitments.

Mr Shaw said the agreement was not perfect "but it's frankly an incredible achievement".

It would force the National-led Government to change tack on its domestic policies, he said, because plans for oil-drilling, coal use and new motorways were incompatible with the deal.

Labour and Greens wanted the Government to set a more ambitious target of a 40 per cent reduction in emissions from 1990 levels by 2030.

New Zealand's current target amounts to an 11 per cent reduction on 1990 levels.

Mr Groser said this was a strong contribution to global efforts to combat climate change.

The Government also pledged at the Paris conference to provide $200 million in climate-related support to Pacific Island countries over the next four years.

- NZ Herald

[Im2Sexy4MyPants]

thanks the climate change scam for China those left wing commies they are allowed to keep on burning as much coal as they want even though people in China can't hardly breath already.
also i heard that China will be allowed to monitor the world with satellites to keep an eye on other countries to make sure they aren't using too much fossil fuels and then report on them to the climate world government org they are expecting to rake in 3 x trillion dollars with this scam.

i wonder where all this money will come from and then i wonder who will get all this money,then who gets to live and who gets to die

But don't worry ktj's lefty Chinese buddies will be on the pigs back well the ones in charge will 

Enron, Al Gore,Clinton, the Rothschilds and the Royals are going to be taking us back to the dark ages with them getting rich and us getting poor wow what a great scam to make up for the broken money system where they just print as much money as they want lol 

If you really want to know whats going on the just follow the money 

China’s coal bubble: 155 coal-fired power plants in the pipeline despite overcapacity

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/11/11/chinas-coal-bubble-155-new-overcapacity/

Enron’s Global Warming Scam Survived It’s Bankruptcy

By reasonmclucus
Remember Enron, the corrupt firm whose failure should have disproved the myth “too big to fail”, but didn’t? At the time it was the seventh largest corporation. It’s bankruptcy was the largest in history until Lehman Brothers failed. Incidentally, Lehman Brothers was also involved in carbon trading.
Enron owed part of its early success to emissions trading. Basically emissions trading was established as a way for some companies to profit from pollution while allowing some companies to continue to produce the chemicals that can cause acid rain.
Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute, is reporting that Enron played a major role in pushing the global warming scam, including establishing the Kyoto Protocals. [Solomon's article in the National Post is apparently no longer posted on the web.]
Enron had already profited from trading sulfur dioxide credits and saw the potential for even greater profits from trading what would become known as “carbon credits“.
The article is the first in a series of articles about those who seek to profit from what Weather Channel founder John Coleman calls “the greatest scam in history.”
Solomon states, ” The climate-change industry — the scientists, lawyers, consultants, lobbyists and, most importantly, the multinationals that work behind the scenes to cash in on the riches at stake — has emerged as the world’s largest industry. Virtually every resident in the developed world feels the bite of this industry…” which increases the costs of various goods and services.
Enron was an early player beginning early in the administration of Bill Clinton to push for a carbon dioxide trading system. Enron also sought support from environmental groups.
“Between 1994 and 1996, the Enron Foundation donated $1-million to the Nature Conservancy and its Climate Change Project, a leading force for global warming reform, while [Chairman Kenneth] Lay and other individuals associated with Enron donated $1.5-million to environmental groups seeking international controls on carbon dioxide.”
According to Solomon, “Political contributions and Enron-funded analyses flowed freely, all geared to demonstrating a looming global catastrophe if carbon dioxide emissions weren’t curbed. An Enron-funded study that dismissed the notion that calamity could come of global warming, meanwhile, was quietly buried.”
Enron advised the Clinton administration what to do at the Kyoto Japan Conference in 1997.
To improve its chances for success Enron hired former Environmental Protection Agency regulator John Palmisano to become the company’s lead lobbyist as senior director for Environmental Policy and Compliance. Palismano wrote a memo describing the historic corporate achievement that was Kyoto.
“If implemented this agreement will do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring of the energy and natural-gas industries in Europe and the United States,” Polisano began. “The potential to add incremental gas sales, and additional demand for renewable technology is enormous.”
The memo, entitled “Implications of the Climate Change Agreement in Kyoto & What Transpired,” summarized the achievements that Enron had accomplished. “I do not think it is possible to overestimate the importance of this year in shaping every aspect of this agreement,” he wrote. He cited three issues of specific importance to Enron in the climate-change debate: the rules governing emissions trading, the rules governing transfers of emission reduction rights between countries, and the rules governing a gargantuan clean energy fund.
Polisano’s memo expressed satisfaction bordering on amazement at Enron’s successes. The rules governing transfers of emission rights “is exactly what I have been lobbying for and it seems like we won. The clean development fund will be a mechanism for funding renewable projects. Again we won …. The endorsement of emissions trading was another victory for us.”
“Enron now has excellent credentials with many ‘green’ interests including Greenpeace, WWF [World Wildlife Fund], NRDC [Natural Resources Defense Council], German Watch, the U.S. Climate Action Network, the European Climate Action Network, Ozone Action, WRI [World Resources Institute] and Worldwatch. This position should be increasingly cultivated and capitalized on (monetized),” Polisano explained.
Those who believe in Global Warming like to claim that they are opposed by corporate interests in the form of the energy companies. They neglect to mention that the battle isn’t against corporations, it is between different groups of corporations. The energy companies are attempting to continue providing energy to consumers. Companies on the other side are merely attempting to create a financial opportunity for themselves as financial parasites who provide nothing to anyone and get rich in return.
Democrats often criticize Republicans for being too close to business. Democrats are just as close to business. They simply favor different businesses.
As William O’Keefe, chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute, puts it: “The American people have had enough of convoluted, indecipherable financial schemes and the opportunists who exploit them. The public is understandably angry about Wall Street’s exploitation of Main Street, and yet our political leaders are setting the stage for another complex trading market, ripe for corruption. The future Enrons and Bernie Madoffs of the world would like nothing better than to see the U.S. impose a new market for carbon emission trading.”

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/reasonmclucus/15835722/enrons-global-warming-scam-survived-its-bankruptcy/

[Im2Sexy4MyPants]

The Great American Bubble Machine

From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression -- and they're about to do it again



Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405#ixzz3uE2l6MW8
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook