Global Warming

[PaulLowrance]

Hi PhiScience,

Yes, that's a great and well known graph. It shows that global warming is real, goes in cycles, and that there's a noticeable amount of correlation with CO2. The question climatologist are trying to figure out is how much of the sudden spike in global warming that began at the dawn of the industrial age is due to humanity. Obviously some of it is, but how much remains to be seen.

Regards,
Paul

[Pirate88179]

It says in in black and white pual.  The GEO will be created out of the treaty.  To fund the GEO each supporting nation will provide 2% of their GDP, also developed nations will provide more.  The goal of the GEO is to provide finacial assistance to developing countries only if the accept the GEO's policies and rules on developments.  The GEO will be a governing body for all nations that sign the treaty.  That is bad by the way.  If you do not accept the GEO's policies the nation will be punished financially according to the GEO.  Who elects the GEO officials?  does not say in the treaty.  where is the checks and balances in the geo system?  does not say.

It is also interesting to note that we, the US spend 4% of GDP on defense.  That's our entire military folks, everything, boats planes, men, training, everything.  That is how much money they are talking about giving away!!  Half of what we spend to defend our country will go to this "World" organization.  I think we need the money here.

Bill

[silverfish]

Exactly!  Obama will toss out our Constitution by signing that treaty and this new "entity" the treaty creates (Great post Silverfish) will then have sovereignty over the USA as well as every other signatory country.  It is madness, pure madness.
It is a an overthrow of our form of government.

I say, by signing that treaty, Obama is committing treason.

Bill

I agree. This article from the Daily Mail may be relevant:

In his provocative book Chill, natural scientist Peter Taylor warns that the world is cooling not warming and that solutions proposed at Copenhagen ignore the risks of a possible return of the Ice Age...

Like a magician who fools themselves but not audience, the Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW) lobby have identified the wrong problem and the wrong solution.

Global cooling threatens disaster for humanity in the developed and developing world alike, yet the media and the scientific consensus ignores this peril.

The Climategate controversy revolves around whether warming has been real and why it has not persisted â€" but it misses the point.

Cycles are involved, not short-term trends, and many respected scientists, especially those in Russia and China, think that a cooling cycle is coming.

The AGW brigade have mistaken the current warm period for a trend caused by carbon emissions. But the detailed science says it could be natural and part of a cycle.

Behind the scenes at the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change there is no consensus â€" the dissenting views have been covered over in the summary documents for policy makers â€" and among UK and EU politicians it’s even worse, and criminally expensive for the British taxpayer.

The real science points to the sun’s magnetic cycle as the key driver by unknown mechanisms. Right now, NASA is throwing its hands up and saying ‘we’ve never seen anything like it and can’t tell what it is going to do next’.


More...

    * Carry on polluting, climate deal tells China and India
    * All the latest from the Copenhagen Climate Conference
    * Comment: why chopping a few flights won't help

Many scientists expect a repeat of the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century when the Thames froze every winter â€" and famine spread through Europe and China.

Natural climate change, especially cooling, is already dangerous for very large numbers of people who are vulnerable to climate changing -  the urban poor in the developed world, including the UK, plus the poor nations currently dependent on food aid.

Cooling reduces food surpluses upon which we all depend. The biofuels programmes aimed at preventing climate change will expose them to greater risk by decreasing the amount of land available and raising costs of food, while this problem coupled with peak oil will affect everyone worldwide and drive up transport and manufacturing costs to levels even the super rich will struggle to afford.

These threats are real and here now, not in 50 years time.
Some dramatic changes are needed but not those proposed the EU, IPCC and UK politicians as they try to hunt down the will-of-the-wisp that is CO2 emissions. 

Business as usual is not an option since cooling actually does put humanity at risk. The apocalyptic scaremongering has made us weary and casual about such threats but we need to act if we are to maintain our humanity.

Our human ecosystems are threatened by the world development model and unintelligent economic growth. No one yet has found a way to develop economically without massive increase in demand for scarce resources â€" soil, water, timber, land and food.

However, it can be done â€" with changes in developed economies, and restructuring development in poor countries â€" and it will require billions.

We need to showcase the projects that work - the unglamorous grass-roots initiatives that enhance the quality of life â€" rather than indulge in the theatrical gestures about solving a AGW that doesn’t exist.

Copenhagen won’t broker a solution â€" not only has the IPCC hyped the warming and misrepresented the science with regard to CO2 and ‘warming’ â€" but it has also proposed a system of cap-and-trade and technology transfer that means huge profits for banks and brokers.

These useless technology sales coupled with a massive global and unelected bureaucracy that decides which technology and which projects get funded â€" merely provide jobs for the boys rather than address the issues

What we need is the creation of resilience â€" the rich world is unstable and will try to buy its way out of problems, by buying food on the world market â€" the rest of the world is at grave risk of starvation.

Food not energy will be the big issue we urgently need to address in the next few years. In the developed world we need to systematically restructure and reduce demand and in the developing world, people need to stay in communities on the land and not be forced to seek work in unsustainable megacities

Climategate does not just demonstrate the corruption of science and peer-review; it also demonstrates the incompetence of specialists who do not understand planetary ecology, especially its cycles.

We’re being fatally led up the wrong garden path by green businesses, politicians, the IPCC and their computer geeks with their doctored spreadsheets and forecasts. They need to get out more and study the real world â€" not their virtual reality â€" because, like the asset bubbles of the financial crisis, the global warming bubble is about to burst…

[pix]

FOLKS!!!!
Let me state last and forever.
During milions of years earth climate was fluctuating, warming and cooling periods.This is well proven geological evidence.
There was no people, no industry.
Who was responsible for this??
I know.
DRAGONS!!!
Dragons did emit flames,as everybody knows.They did this violating all emission protocols, they did not follow emission restriction rules and norms.They didn't care about ecology.
And everybody knows what consequences was. No any Dragon survided,they all die.

[PaulLowrance]

FOLKS!!!!
Let me state last and forever.
During milions of years earth climate was fluctuating, warming and cooling periods.This is well proven geological evidence.
There was no people, no industry.
Who was responsible for this? ?
I know.
DRAGONS!!!
Dragons did emit flames,as everybody knows.They did this violating all emission protocols, they did not follow emission restriction rules and norms.They didn't care about ecology.
And everybody knows what consequences was. No any Dragon survided,they all die.

Are you actually interested in asking climatologist, or just telling them how it is?  If you get a consensus amongst them, they'll tell you that the question is how much of the recent temperature spike that began at the dawn of the industrial age is caused by humanity? At least some of it is.

Paul