GW alarmists passages still blocked.

[macdoc]

deniers on the menu

ticking louder ....just a matter of time

Big business steals the show at New York climate talks

17:33 24 September 2014 by Fred Pearce
For similar stories, visit the Finance and Economics and Climate Change Topic Guides
Maybe it was because the UN's big climate summit was being held within a couple of kilometres of Wall Street. Tuesday's summit of world leaders, hosted by UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon, was upstaged by corporate leaders pledging to cut carbon emissions from their operations and investment portfolios.

Finance houses led the way. A group of investment institutions, including pension funds and corporate asset managers, promised to "decarbonise" their investment portfolios by $100 billion by the end of next year. This means pulling out of funding coal mines, oil wells and oil-palm plantations in rainforests, for instance.

"Climate change is more and more recognised as a financial risk," said Mats Andersson, CEO of AP4, a Swedish pension fund. Both AP4 and the Dutch Bank ASN promised to make their entire investment portfolios carbon-neutral by 2030.

A price on carbon

Meanwhile, an even larger group of 340 financial institutions – who claimed to be managing $24 trillion in assets – joined other corporations and many governments in calling for a global system of carbon pricing to reflect the environmental cost of carbon emissions. Such a system would push their investments out of fossil fuels and towards low-carbon energy, they said. But it would have to do better than the European Union carbon trading system, which is plagued by low carbon prices that provide little incentive.

Competing for attention with the finance houses were big companies that plant or trade in agricultural commodities grown on cleared rainforests. In recent months a slew of them – including Unilever, the world's biggest supplier of supermarket products, and major palm-oil suppliers Wilmar and Cargill – have committed to ban crops grown on newly deforested land from their supply chains.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... COa6Et1Zic

[mistermack]

What a pair you two are.

You don't reply to what I write, and then, you invent something I didn't write, and reply to that.

This is what I mean, about natural warming deniers. It's a religion. Facts mean nothing to you.

To both of you, it's like talking to children, having to repeat the most simple things over and over again. I don't ADMIT that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I have stated it as a fact dozens of times. But like little children, you need it repeating again and again, and still don't get it.

Of course it's a greenhouse gas. That doesn't mean that a higher level has any SIGNIFICANT effect on global temperatures. It hasn't, for twenty years. That's a fact that the alarmist natural warming deniers have been dancing around for years, trying to make black look white.

CO2 is about 400 parts per million in the atmosphere. That, to help you understand a bit better, is 0.039%. Yes, that's right. Less than half, of one tenth, of one percent.
Yes, CO2 helps keep us warm. Water helps a whole lot more.
But it's just as well, because, just a few miles above us, is empty space, at a temperature of minus 270 degrees, trying to suck the heat out of the Earth.
We're not in a jam jar in a lab, we're on a rocky planet, with energy streaming in and out in ways that are not fully understood.

If we understood it, we could accurately say what global temperatures will be next year, with some + and - allowed for sun spots.
We don't understand it, we can't predict it, and it's a joke to say that we can predict for the end of the century what we can't get right for 1 year, 2 years, 5 years or 20 years time.

You need to have the faith of a fundie to believe that.

[mistermack]

What a pair you two are.

You don't reply to what I write, and then, you invent something I didn't write, and reply to that.

This is what I mean, about natural warming deniers. It's a religion. Facts mean nothing to you.

To both of you, it's like talking to children, having to repeat the most simple things over and over again. I don't ADMIT that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I have stated it as a fact dozens of times. But like little children, you need it repeating again and again, and still don't get it.

Of course it's a greenhouse gas. That doesn't mean that a higher level has any SIGNIFICANT effect on global temperatures. It hasn't, for twenty years. That's a fact that the alarmist natural warming deniers have been dancing around for years, trying to make black look white.

CO2 is about 400 parts per million in the atmosphere. That, to help you understand a bit better, is 0.039%. Yes, that's right. Less than half, of one tenth, of one percent.
Yes, CO2 helps keep us warm. Water helps a whole lot more.
But it's just as well, because, just a few miles above us, is empty space, at a temperature of minus 270 degrees, trying to suck the heat out of the Earth.
We're not in a jam jar in a lab, we're on a rocky watery planet, with energy streaming in and out in ways that are not fully understood. As well as geothermal energy coming from within.

If we understood it, we could accurately say what global temperatures will be next year, with some + and - allowed for sun spots.
We don't understand it, we can't predict it, and it's a joke to say that we can predict for the end of the century what we can't get right for 1 year, 2 years, 5 years or 20 years time.

You need to have the faith of a fundie to believe that.

Fuk, that was suppose to be an edit, don't know what happened there.

[Tero]

So now
-it's chaotic
-it's unpredictable
-it's natural

Warming of the gaps, again.

Temperatures are measurable all over the surface and at varied altitudes. No matter how many tornadoes and hurricanes you have a month we can still measure it.

We can measure
-natural cycles
- man made warming
-ocean warming

It's climate not weather. And we measured it!

You on the other hand, live in chaotic natural weather, and we are denying your natural weather!

Climate lesson of the day. Chart of monthly averages for a single WEATHER station in southern Germany since the 1700s:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sourc ... 200306.txt

When you average the daily figure (from the high and the low) you get a monthly average. It's climate! It's an averavge!

[Hermit]

Climate lesson of the day. Chart of monthly averages for a single WEATHER station in southern Germany since the 1700s:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sourc ... 200306.txt

Is it "homogenised"?

[Tero]

Each daily number worked out with a slide rule by German weatherman!

[Hermit]

Germans never ever use sliderules. They use Rechenschieber.

[mistermack]

We can measure
-natural cycles
- man made warming
-ocean warming

It's climate not weather. And we measured it!

Well done. We measured it so well, it gave us no idea what next years CLIMATE will be. Or in five years time. Or 20 years time. But an excellent 99% confidence of what it will be in 86 years time.

You might as well say that god told us, so it's true.

[Tero]

The ice in the Arctic has grown a bit more this year, on top of last year's huge jump...bla bla bla

This climate change is taking it's fucking time. Or it's been wildly exaggerated.

By whom? Nobody here. The warming is what it is. The predictions about the consequences of 2 or 4 degrees per century can be alarmist. We can settle on a warming number, though. Those of us who can read a graph with x and y in it. Denialists have no clue of the slope of the graph through time. Degrees per century.

[macdoc]

←
Arctic sea ice reaches minimum extent for 2014
September 22, 2014

On September 17, Arctic sea ice reached its likely minimum extent for 2014. This is now the sixth lowest extent in the satellite record and reinforces the long-term downward trend in Arctic ice extent.

and

Long-Term Trends
Glacial mass balance losses in 2011 and 2012 continued a longer-term trend that became apparent in the twentieth century. By the time the State of the Climate in 2012 was published, preliminary data indicated that 2012 would probably be the 22nd consecutive year of net losses in glacier mass.

What's taking an inordinate amount of time is for certain dunderheads to wake up to reality...

it's getting warmer
we're responsible

[macdoc]

tick tock

The internet giant Google has announced it is to sever its ties with an influential rightwing lobbying network, the American Legislative Exchange Council, accusing it of “lying” about climate change.

The move, ahead of a United Nations summit on climate change, delivered a victory to campaigners and the UN’s newly minted initiative to persuade companies to shun climate-denying business lobbies.

Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt, told National Public Radio that the company had joined Alec, a lobby group that shares model legislation, for a campaign on an unrelated issue. But he said: “I think the consensus within the company was that that was some sort of mistake, and so we’re trying to not do that in the future.”

Alec’s views on climate change were not in line with Google’s, he said.

“The facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... hange-lies

[mistermack]

A man who works for google thinks that climate change is man-made.

That's all the proof I need. How could I have been so silly?

But wait !!

What if someone else says it's not? That could be tricky.

[Tero]

But wait !!

What if someone else says it's not? That could be tricky.

That's if you are in the business of being doubtful. Never go with the concensus, they've been wrong lots of times.

[mistermack]

But wait !!

What if someone else says it's not? That could be tricky.

That's if you are in the business of being doubtful. Never go with the concensus, they've been wrong lots of times it's irrelevant .

[Tero]

Consensus is never irrelevant. How would you know what side to be on, otherwise?