UK Met Office agrees with UN: it looks bad

FHOP folks on the other side of the issue will be here shortly ... evidenced by berman's global warming thread ... sadly, rather than both side's issue(s) being thought provoking, the ping pong banter inevitably breaks down to personal attacks. Dare I say it ... here we go again?

.

 

This also seems consistent with the MIT study that came out last month (?). I believe the changes in projections are largely driven by economics rather than physics -- growth in fuel consumption has outpaced projections and is now predicted (on whatever basis) to continue to do so. All that embodies "business as usual" behavior.

Please write your Senators today. Here's why.

This summer the House passed a bill that would cap US GHG emissions at 17% below the 2005 level in 2020, and 83% below eventually.

The Senate will begin marking up its version of the House bill this week or next.

This is the only game in town, our only shot to get something passed to address the issue in a fundamental way. If not, the issue is dead for at least this year, and we go to the year-end international treaty conference in a weak position to say the least. So there's a fair bit riding on this.

Passage is uncertain. The House bill passed by a whisker. In the Senate, the committee with jurisdiction over the carbon cap-and-trade provisions is Senate Environment and Public Works. If you want to see something both frightening and depressing, look at the minority page for that committee, regarding global warming, here:

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

This is a compendium of essentially every global warming canard known, with full coverage of the Heartland Institute's work. No logic, no internal consistency, just a bunch of stuff aimed at impressing stupid people. Warming on Mars proves its the sun that's warming the earth, juxtaposed with "the hockey stick was proven wrong" so the earth is not warming. Solar output completely explains global warming juxtaposed with cosmic rays completely explain global warming. C02 increases have nothing to do with warming, juxtaposed with natural C02 increases are causing global warming. And the usual "it's all a hoax" plus "it's all a conspiracy for political gain". The whole nine yards. I've never run across anything like it on any Federal website.

Please write your Senators regarding the pending legislation. It's going to be termed Boxer-Kerry. Paper copy letters count more than email. The simplest postal address is:

The Honorable (full name here)
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator (last name here):

Alternatively, find your Senator on this list:

U.S. Senate: Senators Home

Alternatively alternatively, the members of the Environment and Public Works Committee can be found here:

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Members :.

If you don't think global warming is real, there's no need to taunt me here. My guess is that, of the people who read this board, there are far more who grasp the danger of continued high greenhouse gas emissions than who scoff at the concept.

 

Step right up and be among the first to familiarize yourself with the 'smoking gun' that will expose the scientific fraud perpetrated by 'respected scientists' who publish 'peer-reviewed' work in 'recognized journals'.

A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers.
At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC's assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/

Chogan2~

This is not to taunt you, rather to inform you and anyone else interested in the truth behind climate science.

I strongly disagree with the assessment that the science is settled and that we should be making economic decisions with huge consequences based on a flawed theory of global warming based on CO2 emissions. The folks who back this theory - indeed some of the prime movers - are about to have to answer to some serious charges.

Please call your Senators and Congressmen and tell them you do NOT want draconian taxes levied based on fraudulent science.

This is all hype prior to Copenhagen. It is absolutely no surprise the Hadley Center is propagandizing again. They are up to their necks in the latest revelations of scientific fraud.

The REALLY BIG climate news is that it is pretty clear the original basis for the IPCC report and many subsequent 'scientific papers' in the field of paleoclimate are seriously compromised.

I don't expect to see any coverage in the mainstream media until they are no longer able to ignore it.



The scientist who uncovered the serious flaws in these papers and the information directly from him - located here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/

An article in layman's language explaining the whole thing:
- Bishop Hill blog - The Yamalimplosion

 

Hi All,

Capping a country's CO2 levels does not factor in how successful a country is, and is inevitably leads to a succesful country going downhill. This is why the Kyoto Treaty was wrong, but right in that we do need to reduce emissions.

Any CO2 level caps have to factor in what humanity gets for that emission. The Problem with this, is that India and China (and other inefficient energy users - ie SUV drivers) will never sign up for it.

 

I can't agree with you there at all. Left unlimited, eventually all countries could be expected to emit as much CO2 as Americans presently do. That would be an absolute global catastrophe. Why should one country be encouraged to be more wasteful, simply because it is wealthier. It is absurd. A gradual transition in standards is needed to avoid destructive disruption, but the end goal should be more of a per capita quota.

We share the same air, regardless of income or industrial output. And China's actual industrial output far exceeds our own anymore. So the idea that India and China should be limited to emissions less than ours (per capita) long term is fundamentally WRONG.

Successful countries actually have more excess purchasing power to shift away from fossil fuels...rather than buying trinkets from China as we now seem to be prone to doing. It is a false assumption to believe that being wealthier requires being more wasteful of resources.

We could have been a contender...err, I mean a leader in the coming decades. Instead we (the U.S.) are followers using an archaic model.

 

There is zero, ZERO, empirical evidence that doubling or even tripling present CO2 levels will cause any disasters or catastrophes. You have absolutely no evidence to support your contention that a "global catastrophe" would result from continued burning of fossil fuels. Sorry.

If you have the empirical evidence, please produce it here or provide a link. Thanks.

 

Just a while back Spock was suggesting this catastrophe. Parts 2 and 3 are close at hand at YouTube.