-
1
12/01/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
Wow! Amazing! I also saw a report sponsored by Ford that proved its cars were better than GM's cars.
I went right out and bought a Ford.
-
2
12/01/09 | Report as spam
Wow. I wonder what it will cost us to not take action on meteors.
Just ONE big one could wipe out all the value in the entire world!!!!
More seriously - if CO2 is really the cause of AGW (an assertion with more than reasonable doubt, contrary to the anti-scientific "establishment"), then reversing the temp increases would require not just reducing the amount of CO2 we emit, but completely eliminating it! Otherwise, wouldn't we just be delaying the date that the sea levels rise to some dangerous level?
Eliminating CO2 production completely would cost more than trillions - it would require eliminating about 5 billion people and driving the rest back to the stone age. Doesn't it make more sense to figure out how to adapt to any environmental changes, regardless of what's causing them, than to roll back technology use to the point where if we find that we're NOT causing this by CO2 production, there's NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT???
You environmentalist wackos who think the solution to this is to stop emitting CO2 are just plain STUPID. Those of you who realize that the whole thing is a fraud and are participating anyway are just plain EVIL.
-
3
12/01/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
Maybe some day my property in the midwest will become oceanfront.
-
4
12/01/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
A synopsis of the research - worth reading. Requires a brain to understand, but not a PhD. http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
-
5
12/01/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
Environmentalist Scientists lie, hide information, and have contempt and disregard for the common man. I say we buy them all a 1 way ticket to the Maldives. They'll probably be there, 20 years from now, predicting dire warmings of global rises in sea-level...
-
6
12/01/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
The headline says $7.4 billion and the article says $7.4 trillion. That's some margin of error.
-
7
12/01/09 | Report as spam
CO2 emissions
@Steve Summers: Don't be an idiot. It doesn't require eliminating CO2 emissions entirely. Just finding ways to scale it back until trees and other plants are able to absorb what we put out. Atmospheric CO2 levels didn't start rising measurably until the mid-20th century, a few hundred years after the Industrial Revolution.
-
8
12/01/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
Here's a point of view from MIT ... that needs to be included
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
Are you guys ignoring climategate? I was hoping to here more debate on this climategate? If that data (lost data) proves a hoax, this discussion is moot.
-
9
12/01/09 | Report as spam
UN Data only forecasts 6-9" rise in the oceans
I believe the latest UN IPCC report only projected a 6-9" rise in the
oceans by 2100 which is a guess at best. So telling us the potential
cost of the oceans rising 20" is almost meaningless. Particularly given
that the cost is non-linear. Also the world's temperature has remained
or gone down for the last 10 years. Finally, how can CO2 levels of 385
ppm (parts per million) really be causing anything?
-
10
12/01/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
Given the fraud we know is part of the Global Warming "Science", why would anyone put any concern much less money behind these efforts. It is all a load of crap and the science community needs to purge itself of the liars and frauds. Until that happens, the credibility of the larger science community is highly questionable. Time to CLEAN HOUSE!!
-
11
12/01/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
Moot point if it proves to be a hoax
-
12
12/01/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
Good point ... the data is suspect
-
13
12/01/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
20 inches!
If the sea level has risen by 20 inches, human is so dead from many other climate disasters. Never mind the properties loss.
-
14
12/01/09 | Report as spam
Climate change is dead
So predictable. The East Anglia University CRU emails are all over the Internet and the climate change balloon has gone flat. Environmentalist "True Believers" go on blathering as if nothing has happened. Face it -- the AGW dragon is DEAD. Its head has been severed, but the body is still thrashing around. In the next few months the stinking carcass will be cut to pieces and buried in an unmarked grave.
-
15
12/01/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
Global warming: An inconvenient hoax,
http://www.examiner.com/x-31244-Louisville-Public-Policy-Examiner~y2009m11d30-Global-warming--An-inconvenient-hoax
-
16
12/01/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
All of you people who respond with personal attacks, cynicism, apathy, disingenuous opinions and sarcasm deserve exactly what you get and though I will be there too I am certain I will be the only one laughing. I will be laughing at you!
-
17
12/01/09 | Report as spam
@drueter
The headline on the front page has been corrected. Thanks!
-
18
12/01/09 | Report as spam
Climate change is happening!
I'm always astonished that intelligent people can believe that climate change is a hoax. The opening of the northwest passage to shipping for the first time in human history should certainly be an indicator that something has fundamentally changed. Changing weather patterns are observable by anyone. Ask a midwesterner about how much snow they get now, compared to when they were kids.
Why do we believe science when it comes to its benefits, such as the ability to fly in an airplane, but want to disregard it, or call it fraudulent, when we don't like its conclusions.
Last I checked, scientists and environmentalists alike drive cars, fly in airplanes, eat food from around the world, and generally benefit from a co2-rich society. I don't believe anyone wants AGW to be true. It's just a sad fact that humanity, if we wish to survive, must deal with our waste (co2 and other) more responsibly, and that probably includes making a lot less of it.
When you couple AGW with peak oil, and take into account the damage done to our ecosystem by human activity (mass extinction anyone?) it's clear that humanity needs to drastically reduce our impact on the natural systems upon which we all rely.
To want to deny what's happening is a natural response, but to have a healthy future we must look at what we're doing, and make better choices.
-
19
12/01/09 | Report as spam
RE: Climate change is dead
Regardless of past and future human error at the various Climate Change organizations (e-mails that read badly, etc.), the polar ice caps and other glaciers around the world are melting. They won't stop melting just because Climate Change deniers say that they're not melting in the first place.
Whether or not you believe Climate Change to be a problem, where is the harm in switching to cleaner energy? Have you been outside in a medium to large city lately? The air smells awful and the pollution is causing more and more kids to develop asthma every year. Whether you want to push for cleaner energy to lower our dependence on foreign oil, to lower rates of respiratory illness, or to save the planet doesn't matter - just push for it!
-
20
12/01/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
People who deny global warming are brainless and somewhat evolution challenged.
-
21
12/01/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
I see this as a huge propaganda surge from those who would benefit from the flood of tax payers money that a new world bank would gratefully receive. No doubt they will use that money to start up a knew world government and fund their army (the UN) so they can beat us commoners with the stick we bought them.
-
22
12/01/09 | Report as spam
This debate is about distraction.
The real debit is not over ?Climate Change? since our climate changes every minute of every day, if not we would cease to exit as a spices. Thus climate change is an important and necessary function of survival of all species on his planet.
The real question is then why this debate in the first place? Well there are two versions of history either panned or accidental. Since man plans things for a certain outcome, which is our nature we can say that most events in history are planned however from the point of action to the point of outcome there is a great unknown. That is, uncertainty due to all possible variables which can affect the panned outcome for which man was not aware of or knew they could not fully control thus the end result will most likely be skewed form desired results. Thus the accidents of history.
This is the case once again. To answer my first question we must ask ?chi buno?? That is what is the desired outcome and who benefits from it. If we know climate change is good and necessary barring intervention from cruel acts of man (HARP), God (of Hebrew version) or cosmic events (meteor) and that there is a movement towards global governance-we know this since there are over 50 international super governmental organizations such as UN, WHO, WTO, EU, NAFTA, CAFTA etc. designed to supersede the will of the nationally elected governments in certain aspects of our lives but for which there is no national will to succumb in totum our sovereignty. In order to create that outcome requires national ratifications as we have seen on the European continent between sovereign national governments. How many times have the electorate voted no and how many times was there a push to create a European government with force over national governments? It took time, money, and several changes of local governments to get things done. Very time consuming and unpredictable. Now imagine this being done on a global scale. It would seem an insurmountable task. However if there were a catalyst to create such an outcome that is an issue that all governments can sign onto for which their electorate would not suspect is a document to succeed political and economic control over to a ONE WOLD GOVERNING BODY such as the UN then it would be possible and relatively easier to do. In order to get all governments to give up whatever is left of their political national sovereignty (since economic was mostly eroded through free trade agreements) and prepare to institutionalize a one governing force which we must all pay for, for which will control all aspects of or lives and for which we have no direct or even indirect control over a catalyst in the form of ?Climate Change? agreements was created. In a sense it is a bout ?Climate Change? however they mean the climate of governance in our lives. The agreements at Davos CH is about signing onto a one governmental institution affecting national political wills and local economic policies, the essence of a ONE WOLD GOVERNMENT.
Let s stop debating the obvious which is designed to distract us that unpredictable element which can skew the desired result of some unconscionable men and deal the real issue.
-
23
12/01/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
This article completely ignore ClimateGate and the fact that the data was manipulated to support a false conclusion.
-
24
12/01/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
Throwing money at 'Mother Nature' is just plain ludicrous. If she needs global warming to adjust, then it will happen. How much is it going to cost to realign the poles? And when is this '20 inches' supposed to happen?
Here's an idea. Let's trust the people who can't predict the weather for the next 10 days! Darn good thing we didn't act on 'global cooling' in the 70's and 80's! Those 'scientists' are one fickle group!
And don't give me that 'inaccurate science' argument. That just proves you know an oxymoron.
There! I feel better now.
-
25
12/01/09 | Report as spam
I'll bet you $7.4 trillion you're wrong
Tell you what: Let's do absolutely nothing about global warming/cooling/temperature-changing-in-some-undetermined-direction, and we'll see who's right.
Wasn't Long Island supposed to be underwater by now?
-
26
12/01/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
Before this last week, I believed in global warming, but because I have an open mind new information can change my mind. Now I'm thinking it is a hoax. I feel being a zealot on climate change either direction does not leave room for new information.
-
27
12/01/09 | Report as spam
Guess what? The climate is going to change regardless of what we spend.
We know this as a fact: 10,000 years ago nearing the end of the
previous ice age, mean sea level was about 300 feet lower than it is
today. At that time, the planet started to warm, even through our
limited knowledge that there was a complete dearth of Hummer
dealerships at the time.
So now the scare mongers are trying to scare us with a rise of 6 to 9
inches by the end of this century?
300 feet divided by 10,000 years comes out to something like .03
feet/year, times 100 = 3 feet. So it seems to me that even with
"global warming" we're a good 24 inches off of the mean.
Either way, attempting to mitigate CO2 by trashing our economy is
going to cost far more than $7.4 trillion. Talk about being screwed,
when the seas actually do get that high, there will be no economic
ability left to mitigate the change that is inevitable.
-
28
12/01/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
Since Climate change has been proven wrong other than a way to tax people and make us loss our sovereincy
-
29
12/01/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
Well I for one am not stupid enough to build in say, New Orleans where the sea level (which happens to be within walking distance) is higher than the ground. Also, WAAAAAA! get over it. There shouldn't be anything built close enough to the beaches to suffer. Build further up. There is a reason that years ago most houses and cities were built on hills. We stupify ourselves and think we can control nature. For centuries she has been proving us wrong.
LO
-
30
12/01/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
Also, how about all you tree huggers publish some data on how long emissions would have to be eliminated to effect a 1 degree change. I read a report the other day that stated 100% elimination of carbon emissions for THIRTY YEARS would only save 1 degree F. How many of you idiots want to walk for the next 30 years. Or how about baking all your own bread, oh no, wait, you can't. You can't build a fire for 30 years. By the time we recover one degree, there will be no one on the face of the earth.
LO
-
31
12/01/09 | Report as spam
STOP !!
Note to self: Climategate is now legitamizing everything we already know. Climate Change, global warming, or whatever flavor of garbage you want to propagate, is one BIG LIE. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a building block of life and most living organisms emit it. The temperatures are getting progressively colder since 1998. I live in Wisconsin and, as normal, temps are in the 30's right now. Come sit in my backyard in February and see how long you last.
The ice caps are getting bigger and the polar bear population is 5 times larger.
It's all about tax revenue and keeping us little guys down. Globalization of governments because of this "crisis". Pathetic !
-
32
12/01/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
Those who believe in AGW: please explain away the scandal that is brewing at CRU, please do, rather than just attacking those who are skeptical as 'brainless'. Let's see some solidly backed facts, and some real numbers out there.
Oh, that's right, you don't have any. That's because the original data had been wiped out (and cherry-picked even before that), the so-called climate scientists are stonewalling efforts to get at their research, they are massaging the data beyond recognition, they are manipulating the peer review process through intimidation, and the computer models they were using cannot be replicated, and they are getting rid of any data that do not support their conclusions. Such as the Medieval Warming Period. And oh, the climactic models don't work to predict what happened in the past, but we're supposed to take their word for it that it will work in the future.
Meanwhile, a single volcanic eruption does ever so much more to increase CO2 levels, and the Sun's effects (you know, that giant thermonuclear furnace we're orbiting 8 light-minutes out) are hardly taken into consideration, and water vapour's effects might as well not exist on these models at all.
And the federal budget deficit is projected to be USD10 trillion.
-
33
12/01/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
BSBSBS, use you brains. If all the ice in the oceans melted, there would be NO CHANGE in sea level. Prove it to yourself. Put water in a glass 2/3 full, mark the level of the water in glass with the ice cubes in it. Come back after a few hours when the cube are melted. Guess what, NO CHANGE. Archimedes principle, basic Physics. Look it up.
Jack
-
34
12/02/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
Take a last look, at a website now on the endangered species list.
-
35
12/02/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
Mashford (#13)
You say 'if'. That is a BIG 'if'. I do not believe it proves any hoax -- unless on the part of wacko-right-wing bloggers who consistenlty quote out of context to 'prove' a vast left-wing socialist conspiracy.
-
36
12/03/09 | Report as spam
Don't expect the oceans to stay at constant levels
Don't expect the oceans to stay at constant levels, just because humans decided to build a city or port somewhere. Nature is cyclic and has peaks and troughs. If people don't plan around them - well, think about the fools that made there homes in New Orleans (and Las Vegas, though that's a disaster that has yet to come).
-
37
12/03/09 | Report as spam
AGW Man Made Global Warming is a Fraud
AGCW has always been a fraud but now we've got proof directly from the mouths of the biggest priests of global warming.
http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails#update
-
38
12/03/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
In light of the recent hack of the "reputable" climatology center in UK, This store is nothing more than BS. Climate change or global warming due to anthropogenic influences is a hoax. The e-mails and documents exposed by that hack show that lies, junk science and peer review machinations are the order of the day by so-called "scientists" pushing the issue (or lact thereof). Shame on you for even publishing this nonsense.
-
39
12/04/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
"Tell you what: Let's do absolutely nothing about Adolf Hitler, and we'll see who's right."
-Neville Chamberlain, English Prime Minister, 1938
-
40
12/04/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
My, how obstinate you pitiful humans are. How little you choose to learn from your inglorious past.
The Mayans managed to nearly wipe themselves from the face of the earth, and all they had to it with was machetes.
Now, you modern humans have the combined might of the industrial age. You actually believe you've "harnessed" this might. You look for conspiracies and intrigues when the truth sears at your tightly shuttered eyelids. You are worse than children playing with toys they know so little about.
Someday, visitors will study the remains of this civilization and wonder about the wasted potential of the extinct beings that deigned to call themselves "intelligent".
And the most appalling part of it all: Most of you probably won't have to experience the worst to come.
But your children will.
-
41
12/04/09 | Report as spam
Facts not taken out of contect....Statisticians reject global cooling!
Proof is in the facts: Don't be lazy read the whole article.
Statisticians reject global cooling
Some skeptics claim Earth is cooling despite contrary data
By SETH BORENSTEIN
AP Science Writer
The Associated Press
updated 4:47 p.m. ET, Mon., Oct . 26, 2009
WASHINGTON - An analysis of global temperatures by independent statisticians shows the Earth is still warming and not cooling as some global warming skeptics are claiming.
The analysis was conducted at the request of The Associated Press to investigate the legitimacy of talk of a cooling trend that has been spreading on the Internet, fueled by some news reports, a new book and temperatures that have been cooler in a few recent years.
In short, it is not true, according to the statisticians who contributed to the AP analysis.
The statisticians, reviewing two sets of temperature data, found no trend of falling temperatures over time.
2005 hottest year recorded
U.S. government data show the decade that ends in December will be the warmest in 130 years of record-keeping, and 2005 was the hottest year recorded.
The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It has been a while since the superhot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather's normal ups and downs?
In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.
"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a microtrend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.
Yet the idea that things are cooling has been repeated in opinion columns, a BBC news story posted on the Drudge Report and in a new book by the authors of the best-seller "Freakonomics." Last week, a poll by the Pew Research Center found that only 57 percent of Americans now believe there is strong scientific evidence for global warming, down from 77 percent in 2006.
Global warming skeptics base their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. Since then, they say, temperatures have dropped ? thus, a cooling trend. But it is not that simple.
Temps rising once more
Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, fallen again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data.
The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA's climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend.
"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."
The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.
Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.
Identifying a downward trend is a case of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," said Peterson, author of the book "Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis."
Satellite data tends to be cooler
One prominent skeptic said that to find the cooling trend, the 30 years of satellite temperatures must be used. The satellite data tends to be cooler than the ground data. Key to that is making sure that 1998 is part of the trend, he added.
What happened within the past 10 years or so is what counts, not the overall average, contends Don Easterbrook, a Western Washington University geology professor and global warming skeptic.
"I don't argue with you that the 10-year average for the past 10 years is higher than the previous 10 years," said Easterbrook, who has self-published some of his research. "We started the cooling trend after 1998. You're going to get a different line depending on which year you choose.
"Should not the actual temperature be higher now than it was in 1998?" Easterbrook asked. "We can play the numbers games."
That's the problem, some of the statisticians said.
Grego produced three charts to show how choosing a starting date can alter perceptions. Using the skeptics' satellite data beginning in 1998, there is a "mild downward trend," he said. But doing that is "deceptive."
Conflicting data analyses
The trend disappears if the analysis is begun in 1997. And it trends upward if you begin in 1999, he said.
Apart from the conflicting data analyses is the eyebrow-raising new book title from Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, "Super Freakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance."
A line in the book says: "Then there's this little-discussed fact about global warming: While the drumbeat of doom has grown louder over the past several years, the average global temperature during that time has in fact decreased."
That led to a sharp rebuke from the Union of Concerned Scientists, which said the book mischaracterizes climate science with "distorted statistics."
Levitt, a University of Chicago economist, said he does not believe there is a cooling trend. He said the line was just an attempt to note the irony of a cool couple of years at a time of intense discussion of global warming. Levitt said he did not do any statistical analysis of temperatures but "eyeballed" the numbers and noticed 2005 was hotter than the last couple of years. Levitt said the "cooling" reference in the book title refers more to ideas about trying to cool the Earth artificially.
Moving averages over 10 years important
Statisticians say that in sizing up climate change, it's important to look at moving averages of about 10 years. They compare the average of 1999-2008 to the average of 2000-2009. In all data sets, 10-year moving averages have been higher in the last five years than in any previous years.
"To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous," said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford University.
Ben Santer, a climate scientist at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore National Lab, called it "a concerted strategy to obfuscate and generate confusion in the minds of the public and policy-makers" ahead of international climate talks in December in Copenhagen.
President Barack Obama weighed in on the topic Friday at the Massechusetts Institute of Technology. He said some opponents "make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change, claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary."
Early this year, climate scientists in two peer-reviewed publications statistically analyzed recent years' temperatures against claims of cooling and found them invalid.
Not all skeptical scientists make the flat-out cooling argument.
"It pretty much depends on when you start," wrote John Christy, the Alabama atmospheric scientist who collects the satellite data that skeptics use. He said in an e-mail that looking back 31 years, temperatures have gone up nearly three-quarters of a degree Fahrenheit (four-tenths of a degree Celsius). The last dozen years have been flat, and temperatures over the last eight years have declined a bit, he wrote.
Oceans influence short-term weather
Oceans, which take longer to heat up and longer to cool, greatly influence short-term weather, causing temperatures to rise and fall temporarily on top of the overall steady warming trend, scientists say. The biggest example of that is El Nino.
El Nino, a temporary warming of part of the Pacific Ocean, usually spikes global temperatures, scientists say. The two recent warm years, both 1998 and 2005, were El Nino years. The flip side of El Nino is La Nina, which lowers temperatures. A La Nina bloomed last year and temperatures slipped a bit, but 2008 was still the ninth hottest in 130 years of NOAA records.
Of the 10 hottest years recorded by NOAA, eight have occurred since 2000, and after this year it will be nine because this year is on track to be the sixth-warmest on record.
The current El Nino is forecast to get stronger, which probably will pushing global temperatures even higher next year, scientists say. NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt predicts 2010 may break a record, so a cooling trend "will be never talked about again."
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
-
42
12/05/09 | Report as spam
And the cost of action will be many times greater thatn $7.4 triillion
More bull shat from the left. It's propaganda bs at it's ugliest. The earth has benn cooling for 8 years.
-
43
12/06/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate
18
jjweston
Plz concider that Sun spot activity and output has more to do with our
weather than ppm of co2 goes up or down. Find Jesus Christ and get
life please!
-
44
12/06/09 | Report as spam
The emporer's new set...
Ah, the age of deceit - don't you just "love" it? Tell a lie long enough and loud enough and put enough money into it an *poof* - it's a "fact"! Were the earth to last long enough for us to look back on these crazy days where idiots like High Priest Al Gore and his Greenpiece flunkies (with a LOT of help from Satan's minions, the UN) have cowed every "western" government the world-over into accepting their new religion of GW, we could have a good laugh. But I imagine the world's populace will have other things on their minds as Satan ramps up the pressure and the final days of planet earth play out. Myself, I'm interested to see just how big the 2 meteors / comets are that are going to hit us, and just what the devastation will look like. One thing's for sure - they're damage will make a piddly 0.5-1 degree of "climate change" look insignificant...
-
45
12/07/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
If we keep polluting the earth like we have for the last 100 yrs, soon we'll all be standing in the garbage wondering what happened, if we're even still here to see it.
-
46
12/08/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
THE COST OF TAKING ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE:
The Federal Government lacks authority to preach fiscal responsibility. Federal politicians have exhibited none in my lifetime and have reduced the wealthiest nation on the planet to the world's biggest debtor nation.
Citizens cannot print money to pay off debt. Families have to balance checkbooks and they do a better job of controlling spending than the Federal Government ever will!
During the decades America enjoyed great prosperity no concern was expressed for the plight of the uninsured. I challenge Washington to keep money, technology and jobs in the US by reducing trade imbalance. It is estimated that every billion in trade deficit equals 13,000 jobs lost.
America has natural gas and coal in abundance and can eliminate dependence on foreign oil and does not need to send billions to countries that sponsor terrorism.
If politicians ignore the opportunity, citizens should Cap and Trade: hand the politicians their caps and trade them in for new ones!
Isn?t the timing interesting? With the world is in recession and US unemployment figures hovering around 10% the EPA exceeds it authority and determines CO2 is a pollutant that must be regulated.
SO WHO BENEFITS FROM CAP AND TRADE AND KEEPING AMERICAN COAL IN THE GROUND:
The United States agreed to transfer jobs and technology to developing countries under INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT Algiers Declaration Algiers, Algeria, 4-6 March 1975
In this context, they emphasize the necessity for the full implementation of the Programme of Action adopted by the United Nations General Assembly at its VI Special Session, and accordingly they emphasize the following requirements [excerpt from full declaration]
"With regard to the depletable natural resources, as OPEC?s petroleum resources are, it is essential that the transfer of technology must be commensurate in speed and volume with the rate of their depletion, which is being accelerated for the benefit and growth of the economies of the developed countries"
A major portion of the planned or new petrochemical complexes, oil refineries and fertilizer plants be built in the territories of OPEC Member Countries with the co-operation of industrialized nations for export purposes to the developed countries with guaranteed access for such products to the markets of these countries. [Excerpt from declaration] Read sections 10 and 11]
-
47
12/08/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate
My comments can be found here -
http://www.maccompanion.com/macc/archives/December2009/G
reenware/ClimateGate.htm
-
48
12/08/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
CO2, essential for life, is not a problem. Look, I'm no fan of pollution, but CO2 is not a pollutant. When 95% of the greenhouse effect comes from water vapor, and 3% of CO2 comes from humans, this is clearly overblown and is a tool used by the elites to deindustrialize the world.
Rather than building useless windmills, solar arrays, and instituting a global carbon tax with the intention of killing 2/3 of the population, I propose we have a mass roll out of 4th generation high temperature nuclear power, just the kind of thing we need to increase earth's carrying capacity 10 fold. I'd love to see the environmental whackos start crying when they find out that 70 billion humans can now survive on earth. Never before have I met a breed of people that are so hell bent on "population reduction." Don't they know that's genocide??????
Windmills / solar - require large land mass, provide some power, some of the time
4th generation high temp nuclear - 99% of fuel is consumed, very little "waste", able to provide fresh water thru desalination, produce hydrogen fuel efficiently from water, not fossil fuels, and produce electricity. It is impossible to use any lower technology to do all of these, it is ONLY possible with nuclear fission (it will be possible with higher types of nuclear reactions like fusion or matter/antimatter, but those technologies are not ready yet). We have fission, we have advanced designs that are safe, meltdown proof, and efficient. Let's use them.
-
49
12/08/09 | Report as spam
Greenland isn't called that because the Vikings were smart alecks
It was because, at the time of its discovery, livestock could graze there. They can't today. Obviously, the world has been warmer than it is now, long before the onset of the industrial revolution.
Bottom line is all the priests of global warming had better improve their story line because right now they have the credibility of fox in a chicken coop.
-
50
12/08/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
This topic is just funny. Everyone talks about "FACTS" and "SCIENCE" from reading some articles they found in the newspapers or on the internet and they accept them as fact. Then they make claims that people who oppose their view are "brainless" or have not a clue what they are talking about!
How many of us truly know all the truth about any subject!?!?
Do we really know for sure what is fact on these issues and what is not? No, we never know what fact is because people manipulate the truth all the time, or they make errors.
What I know as fact is that there is a Sovereign God that is in control of this planet. If you deny a creator, you deny the most obvious....it is an impossibility that time is intelligent. If life forms "evolve" it is only because they were PROGRAMMED to do so from the beginning.
We were created folks, and the Same that created us, created and governs this planet. We worry about all the wrong things like CO2, health, financial things etc.
When is the last time you thought about what will happen to you when you die?
If we need to worry about anything, it is what comes after death.
The only FACT you need to know about your entire life, is that it will end and then where will you be, with the Creator or not?
I have a test for those who will disagree. Seek our Creator for yourself, don't listen to other people's advice, don't read other people's opinion of who or what they think God is, forget everything you have learned about the notion of who you think God is or is not.
Look, if there is a God that created this unbelievable creation from billions of light years in the universe, to the invisibility of nano-particles, don't you think this God is easily capable of personally showing us who He is if you asked Him?
It's really simple can go something like this: "God, I'm not even sure you exist, or if you do I'm not really sure who you are, but I'm going to whole-heartedly seek to find you, please show me who you are.!"
(Stay with me here, I?m getting back to the topic?.)
**Whole heartedly seeking God is not spending a single weekend looking up "who is God" in a Google search and then giving up when you don't feel satisfied with what you read. It does take a little time. In everything you do while seeking, simply ASK God, and wait for and follow the subtle leads that He gives you......it?s not hard, but can take some time. If this sounds absurd to you, I DARE you to try it. But it must be whole-hearted and not a feeble half-hearted attempt. Do you really want to know or not? If you are skeptical, I DARE you to try it.)
I believe that the current "global warming" buzz is a fraud, driven by political motives. My conclusion is drawn from taking in information from both sides of this coin.
If you absolutely insist otherwise for either side, you are not being honest with yourself and are just selectively choosing to be on that particular side of the coin for what ever reasons you have.
Let?s face it, if you want to believe in global warming, you will and you will likely only take in data and information that satisfies your belief and not consider the other side of the coin.
If you believe that there is absolutely NO possible chance of global warning, again there you are, likely only considering to even read stuff that supports your view.
We all need to be on the edge of the coin and not on the sides, because what "people" say cannot be trusted.
I only saw a single reference to this in these responses.
Pollution in general is bad, if you don't control it, it can change the environment for the worst.
No one denies that.
I believe the current global warming buzz is a fraud, however, I also believe that countries should take some measures to control pollution and especially for the U.S. to consider new energy sources, but they must use solutions that will not destroy the economies of the world or institute abrupt changes.
If we look at our own history, you see some of this in action.
However, the big problem is that it never works because "Govenrment" is corrupt and only cares about its own motives and desires, and they do poorly in most areas. They are not up to the task of "fixing" anything, they only use situations for more political gain, control or growth or whatever that may be.
In this case, it's for control, just like the healthcare bill.
Example:
If you have 4-8% of dead patches in your 1 acre lawn, do you:
A) Give specific attention to the 4-8% dead areas with minimal cost paying attention to prevent further death while controlling the cost of maintenance
Or
B) Bring in a bull dozer, and dig up the rest of the ~92% of lawn at EXTREME cost, to only put down Canadian sod which has been show to not grow well at all.
If you choose B, well, I don't know what to say to you. There is no logic in option B, yet that is what the government is doing right now. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that it is being done for OTHER reasons not truly related to the care for or the cost of the lawn.
My conclusion is simple, focus on the TOP PRIORITY QUESTION FOR EVERY LIVING PERSON, what is going to happen to you when you die? When you find out, it will put you on the edge of the coin.
Have a great day.
MP
-
51
12/08/09 | Report as spam
I love how it's always activists who are doomsayers
nt
-
52
12/09/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
I think it all comes back to the money. Can you imagine the frustration of those scientists having to beg for funding for their projects? This one has all the wackos throwing money at them. The problem being it's your money, not theirs.
That's the reason for the hiding of conflicting evidence.
-
53
12/10/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
My other comment would be on the selection of 20" as an arbitrary level. How long, based on current projections of GW, would it take to arrive at the 20" mark? And was the basis done as if it was a sudden 20" rise--say by tomorrow?
-
54
12/13/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
HAHA and the WWF, the British royal family (actually part of the WWF), and their allies also want to kill 5 billion people...
They want to impose a 2% GDP tax GLOBALLY (yes, on the USA too!) that will amount to about $1000 per working person in the US. This money will go directly into the pockets of the world bank and the IMF because the $24 trillion bailout wasn't even enough and this system is crashing BIG TIME! no amount of money will save it, they just want to kill us to save their system so they can be the rulers of the rubble. Every sane person should call obama and tell him we're not with him on group suicide.
-
55
12/14/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
In a few short days if you review infromation on both sides of this coin, it is so very simple to see that this current govenrment has in fact taken advantage of economic problems in an attempt to move this country out of capitialism and take control over it.
Everything they are doing (Bank, Auto takovers, Health Care bill, Global Warming, endless spending sprees of trillions) is to put the govenrment in control of the people.
If you believe that they are doing these things for the benefit of the people, well, I'm not sure what is blinding you of the truth, you must just only be considing and looking at one side of the coin.
Always be fair to yourself, even though you love one side of the coin for what ever reason you have, you must at least force yourself to review the other side. If you don't, you will not be able to make a fair decision on what you believe as fact.
I love microwave popcorn, yet I have ignored claims for years that "it's bad" just because I love it.
I have always known that they use a fake butter flavoring in it. I like it so much that I just made the blind assumption that it is safe to eat. I mean come on, they would not put it in there if it's not safe to eat, right?
I would have eaten it forever had I not had the sense to finally consider that if it's not real butter, it's probably some kind of chemical that is likely not good for me to eat.
Forcing myself to looking at both sides, it became clear that this fake butter flavor is very toxic stuff and should not be eaten.
Even if someone claims that it is toxic or not, I don't really know for FACT the truth.
But basic logic tells me that eating some kind of fake chemical flavor is likly not a good thing, so even though I'm not 100% sure either way, I know better not to eat it.
Is man made global warming a "truth"?
Even though you LOVE micorwave popcorn, you are not being fair to yourself if you do not review the fake butter flavor.
Current peoples of this country are trying to feed us fake butter flavor in massive amounts and it's not good for us.
Make educated guesses about what you think is "fact" by considering both sides no matter how much you may love\hate the other side.
I believe that wisdom comes from being on the edge of the coin.
Is there such thing as man made global warming? No, but that does not mean that it could never happen either.
We do need to be able to managing what we do on the earth.
MP
-
56
12/16/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
mulqueen@...
12/01/09 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
mulqueen @ 33 "BSBSBS, use you brains. If all the ice in the oceans melted, there would be NO CHANGE in sea level. Prove it to yourself. Put water in a glass 2/3 full, mark the level of the water in glass with the ice cubes in it. Come back after a few hours when the cube are melted. Guess what, NO CHANGE. Archimedes principle, basic Physics. Look it up."
Great. Now YOU look up what percentage of the ice caps is actually floating on water. Rather less than one third, i believe (the north polar cap) - the majority is places like Antarctica, Greenland and the Hudson's Bay Shiled and Northern Asia. All of it sitting on land.
Try THIS:
Take a large washtub. Put three inches of water in the bottom.Put two bricks in the tub. Balance ten pounds of ice on the bricks, completely ut of the water.
Come back in a couple hours after all the ice melts.
Check the water depth.
Basic physics.
You could look it up.
====================
Would someone PLEASE explain to me in terms that are ... you know ... RATIONAL why thousands of scientists would willingly take part in a hoax of this magnitude?
(And could it please, just possibly, be someone who is not entirely innocent of spelling, grammar, syntax and orthography?)
-
57
01/12/10 | Report as spam
Human activity triggering global warming lacks proof.
In the time this thread has been running that volcano in the Pacific has put out more CO2 than Brazil will put out in 2010.
Unless the venting stops in the next few weeks it will surpass the annual CO2 output of China. If the venting continues for just a few months, which this volcano has done in the past, the CO2 output from one volcano will surpass the 2010 CO2 output of all mankind.
Man's contribution of cooling or greenhouse gases to the air is nothing compared to Mother Nature.
Man put out massive amounts of sulfer dioxide during the industrial revolution and well into the 20th century. All that sulfer dioxide from burning coal never triggered global cooling before the western nations started filtering it in the later part of the 20th century to prevent acid rain.
The world actually was warming in those years as it came out of the Little Ice age.
Yet Mt Pinatubo erupted and in one day dumped millions of tons of sulfer dioxide into the air that caused global cooling for 3 years in the 1990's.
Even global warming scientists have no answer to what caused the warming period from 1850 to 1950 that raised global temperatures.
They also have no explaination for the Midieval Warming Period from AD 800 to 1300 that preceeded the Little Ice Age.
To take the easy way out and blame man for any modern day warming is a copout on trying to find out what happened to trigger the prior warming events.
It was during the unexplained warming period from AD 800 to 1300 when Greenland was named because it was covered in plant life when the Vikings found it. The Vikings grew vineyards there and they never saw glaciers. Crops thrived in the rich soil and the growing season lasted 10 months with mild winters.
During this same period scorching temperatures, droughts and famine ravenged civilizations in Europe, Asia, North and South America. Millions of people died from global warming.
Most of the worlds current glaciers did not exist during the Midieval Warming Period just 700 years ago.
Some scientists believe that the massive population die offs during the Midieval Warming Period triggered the global cooling of the Little Ice Age that followed as farmland across the world reforested and massive amounts of CO2 were held by the trees.
But what triggered the warming back in AD 800 in the first place?
Even the global warming scientists do not know.
-
58
01/12/10 | Report as spam
RE: WWF, Allianze estimate what it could cost NOT to take action on climate change
@Hates Idiots - that's funny, the US Geological Survey (you know, the experts on volcanoes) say that volcanoes actually release comparatively little CO2.
When you start talking about human CO2 output relative to that of nature, you are failing to appreciate that the natural CO2 output is effectively a baseline level of emmision that is dealth with naturally as part of the carbon cycle. Human emmissions are ON TOP of that baseline level. Given that the climate (well the whole eclog really) is a complex system, screwing around with emmission levels will lead to disruptions in the system.
Referencing things like the Medieval Warming Period, etc, is a bit pointless as these were largely confined to Europe.
Still if you want to talk about local impacts, here are some more examples based on observations here in Australia:
Since the early 1990's the prevalence of drought has been markedly increased. This is not a seasonal variation - the winters have been dry and relatively warm, the summers dry and ferociously hot. The consistently increased temperatures in Northen Australia has resulted in increases in the numbers of mosquito borne infections, such as Dengue Fever and Ross River Fever. The rise in ocean temperatures has also impacted upon coral reefs resulting in coral die-offs and bleaching.
More dangerously, the Chironex Fleckeri (box jelly fish - the most venomous animal on the planet) is extending its season from what used to be one month per year (during the 1970s) to 6 months of the year. And its habitat is now extending from the far north to the mid north and is expected to reach southern Queensland in the next 20 years due to a projected sea temperature rise of less than 2 degrees c.
Then there is the side effect of all that human released CO2 on the carbon cycle and its absorbtion by sea water resulting in a lowered PH level....
