For years we have been inundated about the imminent climate disaster that will befall us in 2020. But now it seems that the goalposts have been moved. the currentUN Climate Conference is now focussing on 2030 instead. Why? Call it cynical, but maybe its because 2020 is now pretty close and none of the predicted calamities have eventuated. So let's move the alarm out to 2030 - just far enough away to be unprovable and close enough to scare.

Just more manoevures from the Great CLimate Scare/Con.

2020 ???

yes, what DID happen to rudds 2020 talkfest summit??

Thanks for that response muso, I expected that you could provide a succinct reply that would clarify the situation.
Longy seems to get all of his information from the extreme right blogosphere, and then passes on their fantastic, and almost inevitably, false assertions, as accepted facts.
He comes in with these wild statements, with links from other opinion pieces as reference material, and then proceeds to argue his case as if he has established an agreed fact, but very much like beowulf/grendel, used to do, goes missing in action, when the primary element of his case is proven false.

muso wrote on Dec 4^th, 2010 at 7:22pm:


the way you talk of copenhagen makes me think you are unware that copenhagen was a failure of mammoth proportions and agreed on NOTHING AT ALL!

"Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate
change will destroy us
· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism
Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
The Observ er, Sunday 22 February 2004 01 .33 GMT
l arger | smal l er
Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing
millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns
that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a
'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread
rioting will erupt across the world."
http://jlmiller.us/articles/Pentagon_climate_The%20Observer.pdf


"Rising sea levels
Tidal gauge data have documented a global mean sea level rise of 10 to 20 cm during the 20th century.4 Approximately 70% of the world’s population live within 100 miles of seacoasts, and nearly 50 million people now live at risk of coastal flooding and displacement by tidal and storm surges.11 Sea levels are anticipated to rise by another 7.6 to 91.4 cm by 2020 due to a combination of polar ice cap and glacial meltdown, increased precipitation, coastal land erosion and subsidence, and thermal expansion form rising seawater temperatures.9,12,13 A 100 cm (1 m) rise in sea levels would flood 34% of Bangladesh, the Marshall Islands, the Florida Keys, and many other islands and coastal areas.3,4 If the entire Western Antarctic ice sheet were to melt, sea levels would rise by another 6.1 m.11 Flooding is now the most common type of natural disaster worldwide, and flash flooding, usually associated with tropical storms and hurricanes, is among the leading causes of weather-related deaths in the United States, along with heat wave-related deaths. As a result of climate changes, more frequently alternating Pacific Ocean surface and subsurface temperature oscillations, as NOAA asserts, or synergistic combinations, hurricanes of category 3 or greater now strike the continental United States approximately every 18 months."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1708-8305.2006.00072.x/full

"Climate Change Health Check 2020 Report

Friday, 04 April 2008 11:12

The effects of climate change will not only be harmful to the health of the planet-- they will impact the health of humans as well.

Climate change dramatically disrupts some of life’s basic essential requirements for health: water, air and food.
By 2020, it is anticipated that increasing climate change will have greater impacts on the health of humans here in Australia and globally.

In 2020, it is likely that Australian doctors and other health professionals will be seeing patients with a diverse range of climate change-related illnesses, from heat stress and other heat-related illness events (affecting the heart, blood vessels and lungs) to trauma from extreme weather events such as storms and heavy rains.   

It is anticipated that there will be changes in airborne pollutants leading to increased respiratory problems, including asthma. The production of pollens, moulds and fungi, all of which cause allergic symptoms, may increase due to rising temperatures.

In those areas affected by long-term drought and other natural disasters, it is likely that patients will experience distress and more mental illness such as depression and post traumatic stress disorders.  These conditions are also expected to rise in patients who have survived severe weather events.

Diseases such as gastroenteritis and diarrhea are predicted to rise due to contaminated food and water.  One study showed that for every degree of increase in temperature the rate of hospitalisation of children with diarrhoea increased by 8 per cent. A changing climate will also affect the distribution of mosquito-related diseases such as Dengue fever and Ross River virus.  Previously, in Australia these diseases had been restricted to areas north of Broome, Katherine and Cairns, but could spread as far south as New South Wales depending on temperature rise."

http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/our-publications/reports/289-climate-change-health-check-2020-report

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 5^th, 2010 at 11:51am:


Oh, was that a response? So a leaked secret report from the Pentagon with one oblique reference to the year 2020 is what you call an inundation? I'd suggest that for every report referencing 2020, you'll find about 5 referencing 2050. Here are 5 from about the same time:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/02/23/1051090.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_extinction.html

http://www.themotorreport.com.au/22545/automotive-manufacturers-urged-to-halve-e...
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/1-7-2004-49202.asp

http://foodsecurity.stanford.edu/publications/shifts_in_african_crop_climates_by...



OK, it's kind of weak, but please continue to explain the inferred emphasis on the year 2030 by the Cancun conference?

OK, Let me translate,

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 4^th, 2010 at 5:20pm:

"If you Google climate, disaster and 2020, you might find some oblique references that will back up my assertion." (of course, the same will work for 2030, 2040, 2050 and so on up to 2100). 2020 has never held any particular significance for so called climate disasters.

Quote:


However the UN Climate conference in Cancun has not made any such reference to 2030 whatsoever, except for the after dinner speaker on the 1st December, who starts speaking at 20:30.

Quote:


None of the predicted calamities (by the Pentagon) have eventuated. (Of course it's not 2020 yet, so maybe the Pentagon at the time of George Bush may be proven right eventually)

Quote:


You're talking about the Pentagon under Dubya? That was the only article you've come up with that mulled around the prospect of catastrophes in any vague way.

Unless you can substantiate your claims in some way, I'll lock this thread.

If you actually have something that backs up your claims, feel free to post it. If your claims can not be substantiated, they are false claims, and there is no point in continuing the thread. It's as simple as that.

I have never banned anybody.

Isn't MSN a messaging system? Look, I suspect that I know your source. Is it from a certain charity site that assesses risk at  2010 and 2030 for various countries for various criteria, including medical, agriculture, water supplies etc? It's quite an interesting study, but I'm not sure if it's as rigorous as it claims to be.  The year 2030 doesn't have any significance in itself, because it all depends on the extent to which emissions are reduced.

I am a sceptic, but not in the way that the term is misrepresented these days. That's why I submit all claims to meticulous scrutiny.  The IPCC Working Group I papers are very sound science.

I agree that some reporting is sensationalised. I'm interested in your source if you can find it.

For the record, I have taken that attitude with Green_wins, especially on the subject of nuclear power. Deep Greens run around like headless chooks spouting all kinds of nonsense when you mention nuclear power.

Quote:


How can you say that with a straight face??? the science of the IPCC has come in for amassive hammering this year with MAJOR flaws exposed and the so-called 'peer review' system becoming nothing more than like minds agreeing with each other.

There is nothing 'sound' about the science at all. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the predictions of the hysterics hs failed to eventuate or even look like it.  2007 was the year the arctic ice would disappear. oops! even withthe added pressure of an enormous underwater volcano the ice increased. ditto antartica.  seal level rises??? hmm a few mms in a few locations and nothing else. global temperature rises are at best small and well within the range of the last 100 years and thats even if you beleive the measuring methodologies - which not everyone does.

and then there is the hockey stick graph - the most ridiculous peice of scientific nonsense ever foisted upon the world as fact. the IPCC believes it and refuses to discredit despite the fact that disproving it is trivial.

the science is deeply flawed, the hysteria is embarrassing and by 2025 there will not be a single ACC believer in the world because 25 years of indisputable climates facts will show it to be a 'chicken little' moment driven and encouraged by hysterics.

So, sea levels are not rising?
Global temperatures are not rising?
We are not losing ice from the Arctic and Antarctic?

It was just a blip that peaked in '98, and now everything is going back to what it was before?

Is it reasonable to hold such views, and still declare that you are not a Global Warming Skeptic[sic]?
(I hate allowing denialists to self describe as skeptics, because it implies a degree of reasoned examination of the facts that they clearly have no right to claim)

mozzaok wrote on Dec 5^th, 2010 at 6:44pm:


A) sea levels are NOT rising beyond the few mm that is natural variaton
B) global temperatures are NOT rising beyond the small amount that is natural variation
C) polar ice is actually growing - as it does as part of natural variation

IS THAT clear enough? Climate changes and always has. it is part of the natural variation in the environmet. not ONE since climate event has occured that is atypical of natural variation.

mozzaok wrote on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 9:35am:


Now you come to my fav part of this debate - so-called facts. Only last year there was australian media attention on the fact (reported by a US govt agancy) that ice in the antartica had increased. and then you get this report that says i decreased.  we get nasa saying temperatures have dropped then they say they have increased. we get CRU head saying temps havnt risen at all since 1998 and others saying the opposite. So if the experts cant even get their FACTS right, why should we trust them at all? A british govt enquirt was held into the Bureau of Met. over its REPEATED claims that the coming years woudl be hottest on record only to have the COLDEST years in half a century.

my cynicism isnt ideological - it is based on these regular and absurd contradictions.

oh yeah and Venice hasnt sunk either.

so can you point me to a single INDISPUTABLE climate event that is outside the normal range of variation?

I'll split this thread at some stage because we're wandering off topic. I don't have time to participate today, but in general you can't talk about one or two years in isolation. For representative Climate data, you have to take running averages over many years.

muso wrote on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 11:14am:


That only seems to be done when it suits the hysterics. The hockey stick graph is a classic example of that. purports to be 1000 years of temperature history yet gets it totally wrong. No medieval warm period and no mini ice age. both are 'conveniently missing'. Yet it remains in use by the IPCC and other hysterics.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 12:33pm:


Yes Gizmo, that is a fair point, we have often before seen weather anomalies, but the current warming trend, and the rate of change, is accepted as being influenced by our emissions by scientists, and I accept their interpretation of the data, over that being proffered by the skeptics.
That is the best I can do, and all lay people always get back to this single point, of whether or not they accept the scientific consensus or not.
I do.

mozzaok wrote on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 12:45pm:


A) it isnt really consensus and there is considerable evidence of contrary opinions being squashed and even denied publication
B) Einstein wrote an article whose major point was that ONE fact overrides 300 contrary opinions. so where is the UNDENIABLE fact of climate events outside the normal range? There arent any.

Most 'scientific opinions' seems to be made by people whose areas of expertise is a long way from climate. the head of the IPCC is a train engineer. Ross Garnaut is an economist. and so it continues.

WHERE ARE THE REAL HARD UNDENIABLE FACTS???

mozzaok wrote on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 12:45pm:


Well I don't...Mostly because I read a wonderful quote somewhere (I'll look) that said you can 'reverse engineer' human scientific achievement simply by looking at what science has declared impossible over the years...

For example, it was widely believed 'in the 1900's' that if a man travelled faster than 50mph, their chest would cave in from the pressure....It was proven wrong.
In the 1920's, it was an accepted scientific 'truth' that if we ever split the atom, it would cause a chain reaction and destroy the Earth..

It was scientifically impossible to break the sound barrier or to leave the atmosphere of Earth, let alone reach the MOON...
We did all of those things..

Science isn't an absolute....it evolves and changes as understanding changes.
Some 'scientific' pronouncements have been incorrect.....NOT through error, just through a lack of knowledge...

As to the 'difference' between historic weather anomolies and the 'current' weather anomolies......Is there anyone on Earth who has personal experience as to what the weather was like around the world, before 1650???
No, there's not....so we can ONLY guess as to what the frequency of storms, odd climate effects and earthquakes was BEFORE the Little Ice Age...

For all WE know. this might happen every 400 years..

mozzaok wrote on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 2:24pm:


Most of those achievements WERE caused by people working against the mainstream..

And where do you get 'a few maverick voices' out of the AGW sceptic camp???

mozzaok wrote on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 3:08pm:


Hmmm interesting that there are as many, or perhaps even MORE 'whackos' than 'mainstream' isn't it???

mozzaok wrote on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 1:22pm:


For an issue that demands that we reshape our economies and our societies, yes, i DO DEMAND a few undeniable facts, just as you should. What is so wrong about demanding some proof - not just a few computer models, all of which have been shown to be deeply flawed?

mozzaok wrote on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 3:16pm:


You mean the organisations that year after year predict doom and gloom and are demonstrably wrong?  Dont they ever get embarrased by the repeated failures - often massive failures?

Itanimulli wrote on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 7:23pm:


It's sort of hard to say..
It did cover Europe, the Middle East, Africa, India and Asia....But the lack of written records or exploration of the Southern Hemisphere at the time makes it hard to tell....

The medieval warming period was indeed a local phenomenon - local to the North Atlantic. You seem to have a pretty good inventory of half truths there - some valiantly expressed bold assertions that fizzled out when subjected to scrutiny.

It was caused by a particularly strong North Atlantic Oscillation, a highly localised event according to this paper in 2009:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16892-natural-mechanism-for-medieval-warmi...

Long - was there any scientific basis whatsoever for that utterance, or just the same kind of visceral displacement that   started off this thread?

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 5^th, 2010 at 5:56pm:




This is a tired old argument based on the misconception that the Medieval Warming period was something other than a local phenomenon. So if the original 1999 data is a peice (sic) of scientific nonsense then does that mean that the other independent studies referenced on this graph are also "scientific nonsense"? (isn't that an oxymoron? What do you mean anyway? scientific or nonsense? It can't be both.  )

muso wrote on Dec 9^th, 2010 at 1:43pm:


Yes, I thought it was regional.

Quote:


That quote is from "The Value of Multi-proxy Reconstruction of Past Climate" Bo Li, Douglas W. Nychka and Caspar M. Ammann.

It illustrates that the reconstructions were independent, which makes good sense. Why would you bother to report a study if it was simply based on somebody else's work?

Without jumping to conclusions, where did you get the idea that the data was from the same source?

Gizmo, I know that you are able to follow scientific arguments based on previous posts. I can't say the same for other posters. Surely you must smell a rat by now.  Be honest with yourself.

..

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 11:16am:


How do you read "Left Wing dribblers" from "Pentagon" and "Bush"?

Did you read the rest of the transcript though?

Quote:


That's a big "given".  Overall Australia shouldn't be that badly off because we are already better organised for drought compared to the rest of the world (except maybe Israel).

Jumping off a building has wonderful therapeutic effects. It takes the weight off your feet and gives you a welcome escape from gravity, as long as you don't hit the ground.

Soren wrote on Dec 15^th, 2010 at 10:02am:


Well of course that's what they're seeing here. They're providing it with adequate water and fertiliser, you ....philosopher.

Just so that you understand - I didn't imply that there could be a shortage of water and fertiliser right at this very moment in time.

muso wrote on Dec 15^th, 2010 at 10:30am:



Scientists run computer simulations full of assumptions about of half-undrestood phenomena - boffin says it's all good, they are keepin' it real.
Scientists run a variety of field experiments to show that increased CO2 is actually a GOOD THING for crop yields - boffin gets testy and discovers all the ifs and buts he accidentally misplaced when the computer simultions were discussed.

Yeah, guud wan. Who ya gonna believe? Your East Anglia computer simulation or your lying eyes looking at actual experiments? Well, the computer, of course! It's a peer reviewed computer.


And that Freud sketch  - unsurprisingly irrelevant to any part of the discussion.

.. Mozzaok - Will Talbot is a known spambot. Please delete.

Beertruk wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2011 at 8:06pm:



On what do you base that statetment?

Why would you go back to a report that is at least 20 years out of date? - besides, that graph applied to Western Europe.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2011 at 8:37am:


I love history too, but let's get back to the subject at hand - that of Global Temperatures. Regional studies, however fascinating they might be,  have no real relevance with respect to global temperatures.

Northern Hemisphere  temperatures are about 170 times more relevant that Western Europe. You might liike to do the maths.  Western Europe is 1,437,000 square kilometres. The surface area of the World is 510,072,000 square kilometers.

Northern Hemisphere temperatures, while not ideal,  represent a 50% sample. Western European temperatures represent a  0.3% sample. Not only that, but they are clearly different from broader studies.

Have I made my point?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2011 at 12:38pm:


That is incorrect, my post was in respect of Beertruk's following comment, which I highlighted, "Im trying to workout why the temperature was hotter in the Middle Ages than it is now".

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2011 at 2:18pm:


The reason for the regional variation in temperature in Europe during the Medieval period has probably been discovered.

I referenced this once before :

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16892-natural-mechanism-for-medieval-warmi...

It makes for interesting reading.