Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise


In all honest fairness, I think Freddy is smashing out some decent posts of late.

There is some serious questioning to be done on the climate change brigade. I think Fred is entirely right, WTF has been done since Rio? Why is there no measured response to all the summits – I see no documents. You know, how much has been spent to the amount of CO2 reduced, how much CO2 was produced to send all delegates to the summits? It starts to stink of money wasting after a while.

So even if we know it's [global warming] man-made, what is all this stuff [summits/policies] actually doing? I can't honestly answer that and if you think about it, the answer is actually very little.

Wouldn't the money and CO2 emissions be better spent not going to these summits? Would pollution be out of control or not?


It's a journalistic article. I see no reason not to admit them, but of course it is not the same as a peer reviewed article.

And there is no consensus in this thread on mentioning individual events.


Sorry but plenty of discussion on this before. What weight are you going to give these? and will they be trumpable by a peer-reviewed article even if the article in question is noting that the peer review process is not all that kosher?

But some of us have noted that many citations are made of climate change in terms of specific events until the other side notes other events and then we are told that climate does not involve specific events. I would argue that given the insistence of most of the climate change alarmists that this is now a central tenet to the faith. No specific events. Climate is about global conditions.


That is completely false. I have addressed that issue every time you raised it with me.


Irrelevant. He's addressing the economic cost of responses to climate change, and when he does so he cites professional economists and peer reviewed studies.

False. He cites patterns of multiple events identified by professional climatologists, which agree with the predictions of professional climatologists. He does not cite them as proof of climate change, he cites them as evidence that these predictions have been proved sound.


This is a good paper on the relationship between extreme weather and climate change. ... ndDice.pdf


None of us here are climate scientists, yet we are allowed to post and have our posts judged on their merits. The same goes for a journalistic article: judge it on its merits.


850 million people worldwide now live under some type carbon pricing system. 90 countries are subject to some form of pricing. 30% of the world's economy is covered and about 20% of all emissions. China and the US are the hold outs. China will introduce carbon pricing and taxing next year at 7 key cities and provinces and Emissions trading occurs in 9 US states. California will start next year. Canada's provinces have carbon taxes i.e., Quebec and British Columbia others are introducing them or pricing schemes. India even has carbon taxes.

Learn more here. Don't bother listening to Fred. He thought Saddam brought down the Twin Towers. He's a nut job.:


No, you don't. You have a few talking points from various dubious sources. All the questions you ask have been answered time and time again in these threads so you can simply refer to them for the answers.


This looks to be a good paper indeed. Unlike fredsmith, who likes to look at extreme weather events in isolation, this looks at data over a longer term and number of different events to drawn conclusions. I'm going to bookmark this and try and get some time through the week to read it through.


Yes I'm having a hard time with that. If it exarcebates droughts how is that going to be better for the US?


That's not the same as saying AGW doesn't exist. In fact the reasons for failure are partly linked to the denial of AGW.
It's a different issue to debate.


Yep. It's standard right wing strategy to underfund or undermine and then conclude that a policy is a failure.


Absolutely. But do you think the RIO summit is working? I'm no right winger or denier, but I see truth in what Fred said (no pun intended). Are these summits just trinket tours for heads of states to talk BS? Seems to me very little comes from all the travelling and money... Please correct me if I'm wrong. I have nothing to prove, just interested to hear all the thoughts.


Sigh... you don't even read the labeling on your own Kool-aid?

  1. The IPCC report forecasts that most of North America and northern Eurasia (Russia) is going to get wetter. Hence the confusion regarding those who cite the latest drought in the US and the one two years ago in Russia as PROOF! of global warming!

  2. The IPCC report forecasts that, overall, global warming will be beneficial to Argentina, Chile, Brazil (minus Amazonia), all of US and Canada except perhaps the Southwest AND most of Europe, particularly Russia and Ukraine. So...

Back to you...

And I TOTALLY get that you climate change alarmists don't even understand your own positions on the issues because it is something that I have been questioning for years now.


What underfunding? Gore's palatial digs did not come from his years in power. They came after when he rode the global warming pony into a lather...And given that most of the governments of the world at least pay lip service to your climate change alarmism and given that it is not my party that is in power in DC, what is to account for the curious lack of urgency and action regarding the imminent dangers of climate change? It surely cannot be for lack of awareness... my God, just about every youth in North America, the EU and many parts of the developing world must have been part of at least one "take action" exercise to "raise awareness."


You will notice I said the US not Canada.

What level of global warming? Which areas will get wetter in the US? What happens with drought cycles , will they be exacerbated? Can food crops withstand higher maximum temperatures? I think you are cherry picking too.

The problem the US faces is that it has a huge water deficit already, using ancient and depleting aquifers to water a lot of the corn crop.


So Fred, let's get this straight: you are asserting that GW will be overall a benefit to the US and Canada? Link?


Big John:

For most, I would provide the link. You can find it on your own. It is the IPCC report. It has been posted oh once every two to three months here and may even be linked in the thread on polar bears.


No, what IPCC actually says is that if local average temp rises in certain parts of the US are less than 3deg C, there could be some benefit however at the risk of increased flooding, and if local temp rises go beyond that, crop yields could decline. Crops that are already at the upper range of their growing conditions will also suffer. In the American West however, drought is likely to be prolonged and some places will enter a permanent state of drought.

IPCC certainly does not suggest that overall global warming will be beneficial.