Global Warming is not only NOT a hoax, but it is about 10,000 times worst than your worst nightmare.

reply to post by The_Liberator


It’s a shame Libby that you still do not understand the argument. The argument is about AGW.
Let’s pretend that without politics driving the science that one day a study is commissioned to measure temperature increase if any, all over the world. This study is carried out as scientifically and ethically as can be and all results are open to assessment and opinion by everybody. The results then show that the earth is warming.

So what do we know at that point? We know that the earth is warming. That’s all.

The next step is then to deduce why.

As I explained this would require study regarding mankind’s input, natural cycles, chemical compositions of the atmosphere and oceans, the sun and it’s output including sunspots, earth’s changing magnetic field and universal affects.

In reality this has never been undertaken. This study has not been done. Yet mankind has been blamed for global warming.

I have tried to show you that there are a lot of people that have spoken up and said that they do not automatically believe that mankind is responsible for global warming. You call us deniers for doing that. You say that we lie because consider the research conducted by scientists that question whether the statement that mankind is responsible for global warming is true. We consider it and we feel that there are some very valid arguments within it.

You say that we lie even though it is proven that some results have been fraudulently obtained and processed.

Very well that’s fine. Remember though that you are denying us our opinion.

Below is a list of eminent scientists that either do not agree that mankind is responsible for global warming or do not agree with the IPCC findings on AGW being driven by CO2. Hitler would probably have found them very irritating if they disagreed with any of his policies.


en.wikipedia.org...

Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 ... there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment (June 2007), let alone human-caused warming."

Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: "The two main 'scientific' claims of the IPCC are the claim that 'the globe is warming' and 'Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible'. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed." (Oct 2007)
Position: Accuracy of IPCC climate projections is questionable

Individuals in this section conclude that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They do not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident that (1) global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future." "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."

Garth Paltridge, Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre."There are good and straightforward scientific reasons to believe that the burning of fossil fuel and consequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the world above that which would otherwise be the case. Whether the increase will be large enough to be noticeable is still an unanswered question."

Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."

Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view". He has also said, "It is not possible to exclude that the observed phenomena may have natural causes. It may be that man has little or nothing to do with it"

reply to post by atlasastro
A correlation doesn't really prove anything.

we ALL know the earth is getting hotter but its not why you think it is its beacause of carbon based taxes, you see the SUN is getting hotter evidence of this would be the mars ice caps receeding and the jupiters moon's (which are made mainly of ice) are melting you should look into it.

Originally posted by Mez353

I waited for Libby’s response to my argument about the correlation between CO2 and temperature and which is the driver, a debate he considered closed which evidently it is not. The only thing he could offer was insults.
I also presented some evidence to show that the earth warming in unison debate is still ongoing. I was expecting a thorough discussion about this subject. The only thing he could offer was insults.

I have given you the answer of both questions, and you refuse to accept the facts.

As to CO2 driving temperature or visa versa, the correlation between the 2 is well understood.

www.skepticalscience.com...

As for the debate being closed on the earth warming in unison, the debate is CLOSED. There is no debate on the issue.

All you have to do is Google "is the earth getting warmer" or something like that, and you will have your answer. It is warming in unison period end of discussion.

If you disagree with that, then there is simply no point in continuing our discussion because that is an established fact. It has been measured with land based sensors, satellites, and buoys.

You are arguing nonsense that a 5th grader could debunk and then you call me a bigot?

You and I are not debating. I am telling you facts and you are cherry-picking, distorting, and ignoring anything that disagrees with your irrational and uninformed opinion.

Originally posted by amari
What the Global warming advocates will eventually revert to when they can no longer justify global warming is real is that the extreme cold weather through out the world today is actually caused by global warming. ^Y^

We are talking about GLOBAL TEMPERATURES....not whether it's snowing where you live. Do some research and then get back to me.

I suggest watching the video in the original topic of this thread.

By the way, I reread my last post and it was a bit harsh. Sorry about that.

I do have disdain for deniers because they are simply not rational. You can't discuss anything with them because facts do not matter.

The reason I got so angry is because we are not debating whether gays should be in the military or whether the TSA should be able to touch our junk....we are talking about the future of the planet and our children's future and it is not a GAME.

Your rubbish is why people think there is still legitimate debate about the issue when there is NONE. NONE!

So again, I apologize for my last post because it was over the top. And I stand by my statement that deniers will one day have to answer for their deeds.

reply to post by Nathan-D


Tell that to Mez, mate. As my reply was to his assertion that he sought an explanation for a correlation between temps. driving an increase in CO2. As this debate is about AGW, and the emission of CO2 by humans acting as a factor in temp. rises, I would like Mez to account for the temp. increases being the cause of our CO2 emissions.
It is a rather simple question.
Because, Mez wants to inject an argument that previously temp. rises have precede CO2 increases.
But what he fails to consider is that the CO2 we are refering to in the AGW debate is a factor emitted by humans.

You and I have been over this before.
I am simply not relying on a correlation, nor is the entire debate.

I don't see you telling Mez that trying to use a correlation to deny AGW will not work as a proof for his denial.
I wonder why that is?

reply to post by atlasastro


I have considered it, re read the post AND look at the links instead of dismissing them. the links provide the information on the studies carried out that show how temp increase drives CO2 (as well as CO2 driving temp increase) and that the debate is still open, WHICH WAS MY POINT!
I will have to repeat this obviously. The point I am making is that there is a lot of discussion still to be had as the sentient points, the points that need to be hammered out if we are to ever get anywhere is what the science is still divided on, which is what drives the CO2 / temperature correlation and the temperature increase, if any, of the earth. I’ve shown you that there is this division in thinking yet you dismiss it. So basically what you are asking me to do is to stop asking questions, believe what I’m told without question, ignore the opinions of eminent scientists of noble standing in the scientific community and be swayed by arguments proposed by a college dropout musician and a writer? Arguments that cite work that has been proven to be subjective, selective and fraudulent. Work that does nothing to counter the other side of the argument, merely dismisses it out of hand.

Check this out for an extensive report on the who’s who on the argument aginst AGW.
www.petitionproject.org...

The breakdown is as follows:
Qualifications of Signers

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)

1. Atmosphere (579)

I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)


2. Earth (2,240)

I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,684)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)


3. Environment (986)

I) Environmental Engineering (487)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)


Computers & Math (935)

1. Computer Science (242)

2. Math (693)

I) Mathematics (581)
II) Statistics (112)


Physics & Aerospace (5,812)

1. Physics (5,225)

I) Physics (2,365)
II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)


2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

Chemistry (4,822)

1. Chemistry (3,129)

2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)

1. Biochemistry (744)

I) Biochemistry (676)
II) Biophysics (68)


2. Biology (1,438)

I) Biology (1,049)
II) Ecology (76)
III) Entomology (59)
IV) Zoology (149)
V) Animal Science (105)


3. Agriculture (783)

I) Agricultural Science (296)
II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (81)


Medicine (3,046)

1. Medical Science (719)

2. Medicine (2,327)

General Engineering & General Science (10,102)

1. General Engineering (9,833)

I) Engineering (7,280)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
III) Metallurgy (384)


2. General Science (269)

reply to post by Mez353


www.warmdebate.com...
Your link actually explains it to you. It actually argues against the denial.
It tells you that CO2 is now increasing independantly when juxtaposed with historical correlations.

But you are unable to comprehend it.
SO.

If you want to debate "which is driving what". You need to explain how CO2 is now being driven by temp rises.
This will actually force you to argue against your own source, as your source that tells you that CO2 is rising independantly now when compared to past correlations.

even though CO2 is now known to increase independently of temperature and ahead of temperature.

www.warmdebate.com...

What is even more disturbing regarding you intellect, is that you fail to realize that this source is actiually telling you that a rise in CO2 will have an effect on temperatures. And as your source details the fact that CO2 is rising beyond temperature, and independantly from temperature. This indicates that any effect on temperature will be from a drive related to the independant rise of CO2.

The interesting thing about this result though, is that it shows a persevering relationship between CO2 and temperature,

www.warmdebate.com...

So now we have your source telling us that there is a perservering relationship between CO2 and temperatures.
Doh!
And that CO2 is rising independently.
DOUBLE DOH!
So any relationship NOW between CO2 and temperature will be due to the persverance of the relationship between temperature and CO2 as CO2 rises ahead of and independantly from temperature.
DOH, DOH, DOH!

Your article goes on to further clarify that CO2 has historically been a driver of temp. rises.

The existence of this phenomenon prior to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is the source of much dispute, although scientific consensus generally agrees that CO2 has had a significant effect on temperature (and vice versa).

www.warmdebate.com...
Lets add it up.
Your article states that CO2 is rising ahead of and independantly from temperature. That there is a persevering relationship between the two. And that CO2 effects temperature.

If you want to apply the "Vice Versa".
Simply show temperature rises accounting for the fact that:

CO2 is now known to increase independently of temperature and ahead of temperature.

This hows that scientific debate over which is the driver is still open.

No the debate is not open on it, you just closed the door on it. Well, you actually slammed the door on it.
Big time.
You just proved that CO2 is now acting independant from temperature. But that we still must consider that there is a perservering relationship between the two and that historically CO2 has driven temperature change.
Thanks.

You may dislike the fact that I copy and paste excerpts to prove a point or to lead to open discussion (although I don’t know how else I can show you what I mean unless I was sitting next to you at a PC) but do try and come up with some original descriptions for it and stop borrowing Mel’s and Libby’s. You are unsullied by original thought.

I like that you cut and paste. It makes me feel educated.
You cannot even comprehend the material you cut and paste.
It argues against you.

As for original thought, If you had your own, you would be able to understand the source you used.
But as you prefer your opinion spoonfed to you, all you can do is cut and paste material that eventually tells you that you are infact wrong, in emphatic fashion.

In light of that last fact, I will restate that I enjoy that you cut and paste.

Wow good post, much better than your originals posts and points very well made. However, in showing that the debate is still open I have (because I’m doing this honestly) shown that the debate is still OPEN by linking to discussion papers that show both sides of the argument. Even though this researcher has proved a correlation and theorised that statistically CO2 drives temperature, he acknowledges in the final paragraph that there is room for more discussion….

‘.. even though CO2 is now known to increase independently of temperature and ahead of temperature. The existence of this phenomenon prior to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is the source of much dispute, although scientific consensus generally agrees that CO2 has had a significant effect on temperature (and vice versa). Another thing which should be noted is that there is an inherent delay between CO2 and a subsequent increase in temperature, so the analysis used in this article could be drastically improved by accommodating for this lag. An optimization with respect to lag would also be interesting, as it would provide a statistical method for analyzing what the lag between CO2 and temperature is, both in the far past and recorded history.

Look at this study in Chemical viewpoint, where is closing statement is ..

'The outcome is that the conclusions of advocates of the CO2-driver theory are evidently back to front: It’s the temperature that is driving the CO2. If there are flaws in these propositions, I’m listening; but if there are objections, let’s have them with the numbers.'
pubs.acs.org...

Open debate.

and here ...

www.icr.org...
by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.
* Dr. Vardiman is Chair of the Department of Astro/geophysics.
Individual temperature records commonly used by climatologists and paleoclimatologists show that the past 1,000 years have been marked by periodic warm and cold periods, not by a uniform climate trend. The recent warming trend since about 1850 appears to be the continuation of the warming following the Little Ice Age, rather than a sudden upsurge after a long period of relatively uniform temperatures. The detailed temperature record since 1850 shows a temperature decline between 1940 and 1970, which flies in the face of the explanation that a continuous exponential increase in carbon dioxide causes global warming. And the simultaneous record of temperature and carbon dioxide concentration in ice cores indicates that carbon dioxide concentration changes after temperature changes, not before, indicating that carbon dioxide is the result, not the cause, of global warming.


AND THIS ARTICLE IN FULL BY YOUR COUNTRY'S CONSULTANT ON THE SUBJECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
www.theaustralian.com.au...

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.
Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.
So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.
In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.
If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?
The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.
The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.
Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.


THE DEBATE IS STILL FECKING OPEN.

Originally posted by Mez353

Look at this study in Chemical viewpoint, where is closing statement is ..

'The outcome is that the conclusions of advocates of the CO2-driver theory are evidently back to front: It’s the temperature that is driving the CO2. If there are flaws in these propositions, I’m listening; but if there are objections, let’s have them with the numbers.'
pubs.acs.org...

Open debate.

edit on 9/12/2010 by Mez353 because: spelling

Account for the temp rise creating HUMAN EMITTED CO2.
You still don't get it.

Tell me how temperature accounts for the CO2 we put in the air.


Because this debate is about AGW.

Can you see the inherent flaw in logic.
If they want to imply that CO2 rises are due to temperature, then explain that!

It is basic.
Look at the formula for historical records.
They are looking at temp and CO2 in natural cycles.
Your source points out the overiding significant factor as being Independant rising CO2. This is anthropogenic and not part of any previous cycle in nature.
Now, please explain how temperature rises accounts for an independant rise in CO2 from anthropogenic sources that are unprecedented.

Please explain how scientists have the drives in reverse.
Because the drive they are talking about has never existed before, that drive being Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 from once sequestered fossil fuels.

Your source acknowledges that.
In spades.

How is your foot, it really hurst when you shoot yourself doesn't it?

If you are at all open to honest discussion on this topic, then answer these questions.
How does Temperature rises account for human CO2 emissions?
As that would be the "reverse" of what your source states.

It’s the temperature that is driving the CO2.

When it states that CO2 is rising independant of Temp. from anthropogenic sources.

If you ask the questions in English it may help but I get what you mean. What you don’t get is that the amount of airborne CO2 is physically measured but the amount generated by man, as you rightly say is called Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 is estimated because they are indistinguishable.

By the way, my foot’s fine, you’ll feel it shortly as it kicks your ass.

Originally posted by Mez353
If you ask the questions in English it may help but I get what you mean.

Just answer the question Mez.
If you want Temp to be the driver of CO2 increase, explain anthropogenic CO2!

What you don’t get is that the amount of airborne CO2 is physically measured but the amount generated by man, as you rightly say is called Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 is estimated because they are indistinguishable.

Nice try.
Your source states that they distinguish the rise in CO2 as being independant from temp. and from anthropogenic sources.
They distinguish it for you.Please explain Mez, how temperature is causing Human emissions of CO2 that are rising independantly from temperature.

By the way, my foot’s fine, you’ll feel it shortly as it kicks your ass.

Sorry, I meant the foot in your mouth, you know, the whole "licking ones wounds" after ideological firearm mishap causes injury to lower appendage.

The truth hurts, doesn't it Mez.
Kicking me won't make it go away.

Nothing's hurting scrote.
From the pubs.acs.org... reference
IPCC NUMBERS:

In 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) data on the carbon balance showed ~90 gigatons (Gt) of carbon in annual quasi-equilibrium exchange between sea and atmosphere, and an additional 60-Gt exchange between vegetation and atmosphere, giving a total of ~150 Gt (1)

Putting a rational variation as noise of ~5 -6 Gt on those numbers, this float is on the order of the additional—almost trivial (95% of the radiative absorption. And, because of the variation in the absorption due to water variation, anything future increases in CO2 might do, water will already have done. The common objection to this argument is that the wide fluctuations in water concentration make an averaging (for some reason) impermissible. Yet such averaging is applied without objection to global temperatures, when the actual temperature variation across the Earth from poles to equator is roughly –100 to +100 °F, and a change on the average of ±1 °F is considered major and significant. If this averaging procedure can be applied to the atmospheric temperature, it can be applied to the atmospheric water content; and if it is denied for water, it must, likewise, be denied for temperature—in that case we don’t have an identified problem!

EXAMPLE:

So warming oceans release CO2 ( or absorb less, the end result is the same) thus causing a further rise in temperature (YOUR ARGUMENT) which feeds back and so on.
Except the glaciers/ice-caps start to melt and lower the ocean temperature and slow down ( or maybe halt ) feedback.
Evaporation increases and more heat is lost to space in the upper atmosphere.
Land Biomass begins to pick up.
Oceanic CO2 release decreases the acidity of sea water and carbonate fixing biota do better and lock up more CO2 allowing more CO2 to enter the oceans.

The climate has demonstrated historically that it is very stable despite quite large changes in the sub-systems modulating the Heat in - Heat out process.
Life has equally demonstrated it can cope with large climatic changes and that it actually prefers it to be warmer.............

(1) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change; Houghton, J. T., Meira Filho, L. G., Callender, B. A., Harris, N.,

icecap.us...

MYTH - Weather extremes such as droughts, floods, hurricane, tornadoes, and heat waves have become more common.


Scientists have studied this issue and come to the opposite conclusion: extreme events are becoming LESS common. Atlantic hurricanes were much more numerous from 1950 to 1975 than from 1975 to present. Hailstorms in the US are 35% less common than they were fifty years ago. Extreme rainfall in the US at the end of the 20th century is comparable to what it was at the beginning of the 20th century. Roger Pielke, Jr, in the journal Climatic Change (1999) said “it is essentially impossible to attribute any particular weather event to global warming.” For flooding, Pielke did list a number of important non-climatic factors that have the potential to influence flooding in the future, including deteriorating dams and levees, changes in land use, building in flood-prone areas, governmental policies, as well as other societal influences. Pielke, R.A., JR. 1999. Nine fallacies of floods. Climatic Change 42: 413-438.

In his recent movie, former Vice President Al Gore, said: “If you look at the ten hottest years ever measured, they all occurred in the last fourteen years, and the hottest of all was 2005.”


The ten hottest years ever measured happened thousands of years ago and 2005 was not one of them. Gore must be using only temperature readings from the 125 year thermometer set, a very short time to look at when one is trying to understand Global Warming, but this period of time suits the environmentalists because it is a time in which temperatures happened to be wandering up. Alarmists refuse to look at the big picture because it shows what they refuse to believe. For the US, the recently revised NASA GISS Annual Mean temperatures show 6 of the 10 warmest years were from the 1920s to the 1950s and only 4 since 1990.

The big picture is that for the last eleven thousand years, Global Temperatures have been going sideways while wandering up and down between 54 and 60 degrees Fahrenheit. In this eleven thousand years there have been five up-spikes hotter than the year 2005. The current rise in temperature is merely a medium size upward movement; of more importance, is the current high spike in CO2 levels, which is the real Hockey Stick of Global Warming.

Renowned climatologist Roger Pielke, Sr. has used IPCC’s estimates of climate forcing to calculate the contribution of CO2 to recent climate change. Pielke makes very conservative (worst-case) assumptions in considering the impacts of greenhouse gases, black carbon, tropospheric ozone, and solar radiation. This analysis ignores land use changes, which have been demonstrated to affect climate in a significant way, and cosmic rays, which affect cloud cover and thus can lead to significant climate changes.

Pielke’s estimate is that CO2 is responsible for 28% (at most) of the human-caused changes28% (at most) of the human-caused changes. If natural variations do occur (and it’s very hard to argue that they do not) then this value decreases. But even if one assumes that the entire 0.6 deg C increase since 1900 is due to human effects, Pielke’s estimate would suggest a CO2 contribution of only 0.17 deg C.

Modern temperatures remain lower than other periods within the Holocene (since the last Ice Age). Geologists and paleoclimatologists believe that the warmest conditions in the Holocene occurred several thousand years before Christ, and that several such episodes occurred. The most recent warm period occurred in medieval times 800-1200 years ago. Richard A. Muller and Gordon J. MacDonald, “Chapter 1: Brief Introduction to the History of Climate” Ice Ages and Astronomical Causes 2000)


MYTH - Climate has been stable for a long time but now is getting increasingly extreme.


Climate swings are nothing new. Between 800 and 1300 AD, much of the world was several degrees warmer than today. People grew wine grapes in England, figs in Germany, assorted crops in Greenland. Then came the Little Ice Age, and temperatures considerably colder than today persisted until the climate warmed again around 1900. The likely cause? Changes in the sun’s energy output, or perhaps the Earth’s orbit, say Harvard-Smithsonian scientists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon.



MYTH - CO2 is a pollutant.



CO2 is an essential nutrient for plants. Plants absorb CO2 and release oxygen, while animals inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Researchers have proven that higher CO2 concentrations enable plants to grow faster and give them better drought tolerance.



MYTH - CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas.



Not even close. Most of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, which is about 100 times as abundant in the atmosphere as CO2 and thus has a much larger effect.



MYTH - The greenhouse effect is a bad thing.



The greenhouse effect is necessary for life on earth as we know it, were it not for the greenhouse effect, temperatures on Earth would be about 60 degrees F (33°C) colder than they are at present. The global warming discussions center on the claims that human enhancement of the greenhouse will raise temperatures, and that these will be large compared with natural variations. (www.junkscience.com... and Sherwood B. Idso, Craig D. Idso and Keith E. Idso, “The Specter of Species Extinction: Will Global Warming Decimate Earth’s Biosphere?,
www.marshall.org...)



MYTH - Modeling the earth’s climate is nearly an exact science.



General Circulation Models (GCMs) vary by a factor of 3 in their forecasts; they require arbitrary adjustments; and they cannot properly simulate clouds. Their forecasts of substantial warming depend on a positive feedback from atmospheric water vapor (WV). Many of the natural variations (sunlight, El Niño, volcanoes, and so on) cannot be predicted with any skill in the future. (George Taylor, “Science Wake Up Call: There is More Hype Than Truth,” National Association of Manufacturers, May 2004)



MYTH - Summers will be extremely hot and dry.



According to greenhouse physics, the effects of increases in greenhouse gases will be much more significant in the driest air. This occurs in the coldest regions (cold air is able to hold much less water, in the form of water vapor, than warm air) ¯ the polar regions, in winter, at night. Temperature effects in tropical or mid-latitude regions and in summer are expected to be much less significant. (George Taylor, “Science Wake Up Call: There is More Hype Than Truth,” National Association of Manufacturers, May 2004). Also see how most all midwest summer heat records are still back in the 1930s 0r 1940shere and here.



MYTH - The sun is a constant source of energy.



The sun’s radiation varies over many time scales, from short (11 year sunspot cycle, 20-27 year magnetic field) to medium (106- and 216 year cycles) to long (tens of thousands of years). Northern hemisphere temperature variations over the last 200 years closely match estimated solar intensity, as one would expect. (George Taylor, “Science Wake Up Call: There is More Hype Than Truth,” National Association of Manufacturers, May 2004)



MYTH - Glaciers all over the world are shrinking because of global warming.



Braithwaite in 2002 in a paper “Glacier mass balance” in the Journal Progress in Physical Geography reveals “there are several regions with highly negative mass balances in agreement with a public perception of ‘the glaciers are melting,’ but there are also regions with positive balances.” Within Europe, for example, he notes that “Alpine glaciers are generally shrinking, Scandinavian glaciers are growing, and glaciers in the Caucasus are close to equilibrium for 1980-95.” And when results for the whole world are combined for this most recent period of time, Braithwaite notes “there is no obvious common or global trend of increasing glacier melt in recent years.”

Dr. Tim Patterson writes about Canadian glaciers that researchers from the University of Calgary and the University of Western Ontario have shown that glaciers in the Lake Louise area and at the Athabaska Icefields have receded far above their present limits in the past. We should consider the conditions that cause glaciers to advance and retreat. Obviously, climate warming will cause melt-back of the toe of a glacier (retreat). The cause for advance is primarily increased snowfall at the top of a glacier (the accretion zone). The pressure of the new glacial ice at the top of the glacier will cause the glacier to start flowing downhill more rapidly than the toe is melting; hence, the advance. Cooler temperatures without the increase in snowfall will probably not halt the retreat. It is possible to have a retreat with cool temperatures and low precipitation, and it is possible to have an advance with warm temperatures and heavy snowfall. It has been recorded in the literature that waxing and waning of glaciers all over the world is a common occurrence and that any reference to this being an abnormal thing, due to Global Warming depends on selectively gathered “evidence”. This has been remarkably well illustrated in New Zealand in 2004 with the rapid advance of glaciers in the South Island with the only climatic change being very heavy precipitation.

Gore claims that sea level rise could drown the Pacific islands, Florida, major cities the world over, and the 9/11 Memorial in New York City.



Sea level has been rising at a rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past 8,000 years. The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” Unless there is another Little Ice Age, they will continue rising at roughly this rate for centuries to come. As to open water in the Arctic, it happens every year in late summer—following weeks in the 40s and 50s.


It’s getting hot in here… In 2003 the hottest European summer on record caused more than 20,000 deaths. Extreme heat waves also caused more than 1500 deaths in India.



Many of the deaths reported in 2003 were not from the heat. J.R. Stedman, and air quality scientist, reported that 21-38% of the total excess deaths in the United Kingdom claimed to be due to high temperatures were actually the result of high levels of the pollutants ozone and PM10. P.H. Fischer determined that 33-50% of the deaths attributed to the same heat wave in the Netherlands were caused by the same two air pollutants.


In the Czech Republic, J. Kysely and R. Huth found that a large portion of the mortality increase that is often attributed to heat waves is actually due to a harvesting effect, which “can be estimated to account for about 50% of the total number of victims.” In other words, as they put it, “people who would have died in the short term even in the absence of oppressive weather conditions made up about half of the total number of deaths.”


The real killer in Europe is not heat but cold. According to the UK Department of Health, average winter excess mortality in a normal year in the UK alone is approximately 35,000. There is strong scientific evidence that normal cold temperatures kill far more people than summer heat waves, even severe ones, almost everywhere in the world. And since the primary effect of global warming is expected to be an increase in the coldest winter temperatures, moderate global warming may actually SAVE lives. (George Taylor, “Science Wake Up Call: There is More Hype Than Truth,” National Association of Manufacturers, May 2004)



Gore lists ways the United States could reduce emissions of greenhouse gases back to the levels of 1970.



Even if the US reduced greenhouse gas emissions to zero it would have no immediate impact on climate. China, India and many other countries are significantly increasing their emission levels, and global concentrations of CO2 may double this century. Even if the Kyoto Protocol could be fully implemented the globe would be spared no more than a few hundredths of a degree of warming.



MYTH - The number of category 4 and 5 storms has greatly increased over the past 35 years, along with ocean temperature. Warmer water in the oceans pumps more energy into tropical storms, making them more intense and potentially more destructive.



The 1940s were rather busy, the 70s the quietest, and the 1990s pretty close to the long-term average. A simple linear fit suggests a decrease over time. This is a result echoed by Easterling, et al (2000), who said, “the number of intense and landfalling Atlantic hurricanes has declined.” In the Gulf of Mexico there is “no sign of an increase in hurricane frequency or intensity,” according to Bove, et al (1998). For the North Atlantic as a whole, according to the United Nations Environment Programme of the World Meteorological Organization, “Reliable data ... since the 1940s indicate that the peak strength of the strongest hurricanes has not changed, and the mean maximum intensity of all hurricanes has decreased.”


Granted, there has been an upswing in the Atlantic since 1995, and since 2004, the bumper crop of storms has struck Florida in numbers and intensities seldom occurring before. A sign of things to come, especially in a warmer world? Not according to Bill Gray’s Tropical Forecast group at Colorado State University. Gray, who has developed successful methods for predicting hurricane activity, said, “Various groups and individuals have suggested that the recent large upswing in Atlantic hurricane activity (since 1995) may be in some way related to the effects of increased man-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2). There is no reasonable scientific way that such an interpretation of this recent upward shift in Atlantic hurricane activity can be made.”


And there is no reason to expect increases in hurricanes due to greenhouse warming. Climate models, for all their problems, are unanimous in at least one respect: they predict that most of the future warming will be in high latitudes, in the polar regions. This will reduce the north-south temperature gradient and make poleward transfer of heat less vigorous—a task in which tropical storms play a major role. All other things being equal, a warmer world should have fewer, not more, hurricanes.


Zhang, et al (2000) examined storm activity along the US East Coast over the twentieth century. After stating, “it has been speculated that future global warming will change the frequency and severity of tropical and extratropical storms,” the authors used historical data in an attempt to help predict future trends. Using a variety of indices, including storm surge water levels, the authors found “no significant trend in storm activity during this century along the East Coast.” The real problem along the coastline, they say, is not changing climate but changing land use, as more and more development occurs along the shorelines, creating greater susceptibility to storm damage.


Gulev, et al (2000) employed NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data since 1958 to study the occurrence of winter storms over the northern hemisphere. They found a statistically significant (at the 95% level) decline of 1.2 cyclones per year for the period, during which temperatures reportedly rose in much of the hemisphere.



Warmer temperatures could also increase the probability of drought. Greater evaporation, particularly during summer and fall, could exacerbate drought conditions and increase the risk of wildfires.



Kunkel et al. (1999) concluded, they saw “no apparent trend in climatic drought frequency” and “no evidence of changes in the frequency of intense heat or cold.” Climate change is not a major factor because “trends in most related weather and climate extremes do not show comparable increases with time.”



More frequent and more intensive heat waves could result in more heat-related deaths. These conditions could also aggravate local air quality problems, already afflicting more than 80 million Americans. Global warming is expected to increase the potential geographic range and virulence of tropical diseases as well.



Malaria, yellow and dengue fever are related to the absence of vaccines, pesticides, screens and other health care measures, not to temperatures, tropical disease expert Dr. Paul Reiter points out. Wisconsin had malaria outbreaks in the 1880s; yellow fever claimed 19,000 lives in Memphis in 1878; and 2,000 people got dengue fever in one Mexican border town in 1995, while Texas reported only seven cases.



Is global warming really impacting polar bears?



In An Inconvenient Truth, the polar bear drowning on a sole melting piece of ice moved a lot of people and public and political pressure encouraged the US Fish and Wildlife Service to add polar bears as “threatened” animals to the endangered species list.


In 2002, the US Geological Survey in the Arctic Refuge Coastal plain reported the polar bear population was near historic highs. Biologist Mitchell Taylor of the Arctic community of Nunavit who tracks 13 of those colonies, says 11 are stable or thriving with populations that have increased 25%.


There are approximately 19 worldwide polar bear populations, the Fish and Wildlife action was based solely on reviewing data for only one of those populations in western Hudson Bay which has declined by 259 bears in last 17 years. The decline is due to hunting to prevent overpopulation and ironically the Canadian government is looking to increase the quota. (US Geological Survey in Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain 2002, and Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Polar Bear Biologist, Department of Environment, Government of Nunavut , Igloolik , Nunavut , Canada “Last Stand of our wild polar bears” 5/1/06)



Conclusions



The CO2-induced global warming extinction hypothesis claims that as the world warms in response to the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content, many species of plants and animals will not be able to migrate either poleward in latitude or upward in elevation fast enough to avoid extinction as they try to escape the stress imposed by the rising temperature. With respect to plants, however, we have shown that as long as the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration rises in tandem with its temperature, most of them will not “feel the heat,” as their physiology will change in ways that make them better adapted to warmer conditions. Hence, although earth’s plants will likely spread poleward and upward at the cold-limited boundaries of their ranges in response to a warming-induced opportunity to do so, their heat-limited boundaries will probably remain pretty much as they are now or shift only slightly.


Consequently, in a world of rising atmospheric CO2 concentration, the ranges of most of earth’s plants will likely expand if the planet continues to warm, making plant extinctions even less likely than they are currently.


Animals should react much the same way. In response to concurrent increases in atmospheric temperature and CO2 concentration, they will likely migrate poleward and upward, where cold temperatures prevented them from going in the past, as they follow earth’s plants. Also as with earth’s plants, the heat-limited boundaries of their ranges should in many cases be little affected, as has been observed in several of the real-world studies that have been wrongly cited as providing evidence for impending species extinctions, or their entire ranges may simply shift with the rising temperature, as has been observed in many real-world studies of marine ecosystems.


To summarize, both theory and observation paint the same picture. A goodly portion of earth’s plants and animals should actually expand their ranges and gain a stronger foothold on the planet as the atmosphere’s temperature and CO2 concentration continue to rise. If the air’s CO2 content were suddenly to stop increasing, however, the biosphere could find itself facing a significant challenge, as the world’s plants would cease acquiring the extra physiological protection against heat stress that is afforded them by rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Consequently, the end result of curtailing anthropogenic CO2 emissions might well be just the opposite of what many people are hoping to accomplish by encouraging that policy, i.e., many species might actually be driven to extinction, rather than being saved from such a fate.

reply to post by atlasastro

Just answer the question Mez. If you want Temp to be the driver of CO2 increase, explain anthropogenic CO2!

It you're intent on asking a question it would help if you put a question mark at the end of the sentence signalling a question. In all seriousness though, I am quite confused by your non-question. Mez is just pointing out that CO2 has historically lagged temperature fluctuations, as opposed to preceding them, which would hint, though definitely prove, that temperature was controlling CO2. I think a more coherent way of putting what I infer your above quote means would be to say "even though CO2 has lagged temperature that does not mean to say that CO2 does not effect temperature, in fact the laws of physics and CO2's radiation-absorbing qualities means that it must have some effect, and we are currently putting huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, thus anthropogenic warming, to some extent, must be real". Even I agree with this. AGW has to be real, even if it is immeasurably minuscule. Even so, the IPCC calculate a rise in 1C in the mean global temperature on a doubling of atmospheric CO2 content from its estimated pre-industrial level of 280ppmv and I think this is more or less uncontroversial among the scientific community. Hence even by their own calculations the actual global warming effect from the total CO2 greenhouse is quite puny. However feedbacks are expected to push that 1C up to about 3C with a 90% probability, though the magnitude of feedbacks (climate sensitivity) are a lot more uncertain, and based largely on inscrutable models, with clouds being the biggest area of uncertainty.

Water and CO2 are treated the same in calculations involving latent heat, thermal properties etc. so if I believe that the evaporation of water in the oceans drives global warming I must agree by default that AGW from CO2 may be miniscule. However consider this, the earth may be warmed and cooled by fluctuations in it's natural cycles that could be attributed in part to water and CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed it has been shown that following enormous volcanic eruptions the climate has changed very suddenly and sometimes for up to a few years. Thus, the gaseous material expelled must have an affect on the climate if ejected in sufficient quantities. CO2 would make up some of this ejected material, along with steam (water), noxious compounds and liquid 'solids' (Sulphate particles) that stay in the Stratosphere for years. So you have all of this ejecta and then the planet cools, often for a few years. Then it warms up again as the sulphates spread out, the atmosphere regulates and then boom, it happens again. And again and again. And this has been going on for ever. And the atmosphere self regulates.
Add to that sun cycles (sun spots) changing the magnetic field of the earth and ozone layering, etc etc etc and I cannot concede that any measurable miniscule affect of CO2 AGW has any longterm affect on the earth's climate.

Yes Mel, Libby and Scrote… I’ll be explaining to my children how the world was taken for a ride!

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

The Climate Cash Cow
A high-ranking member of the U.N.’s Panel on Climate Change admits the group’s primary goal is the redistribution of wealth and not environmental protection or saving the Earth.

Money, they say, is the root of all evil. It’s also the motivating force behind what is left of the climate change movement after the devastating Climategate and IPCC scandals that saw the deliberate manipulation of scientific data to spur the world into taking draconian regulatory action.

Left for dead, global warm-mongers are busy planning their next move, which should occur at a climate conference in relatively balmy Cancun at month’s end. Certainly it should provide a more appropriate venue for discussing global warming than the site of the last failed climate conference - chilly Copenhagen.

Ottmar Edenhofer… told the Neue Zurcher Zeitung last week:
“The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.”
After all, redistributing global wealth is no small matter.

Edenhofer let the environmental cat out of the bag when he said,
“climate policy is redistributing the world’s wealth” and that “it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization.”

…Edenhofer claims “developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community” and so they must have their wealth expropriated and redistributed to the victims of their alleged crimes, the postage stamp countries of the world.

He admits this “has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”
It has everything to do with a different kind of green.
…Given this administration’s willingness to compromise American sovereignty, we could soon see Americans taxed to fund a global scam - the ultimate form of taxation without representation.
So science has been abused as a vehicle for justifying worldwide wealth redistribution.

Gosh, that’s what many of us have been saying for years. That’s what the Climategate e-mails clearly demonstrated. It’s nice to see that Mr. Edenhofer from his position of influence at the IPCC agrees

To accept the denier's quote-mined version of Edenhofer's interview, you'd have to be a bit of a blind eejit, a fan of disinformation, or just simply a troll.

I am generally going to ignore your BS, as original thought and intellectual honesty aren't your forte. But I thought the chance to fisk you here too easy and good to miss.

One original interview with Edenhofer is in the seuddeutsche zeitung here. And the original in the NZZ is here.

Lets take Noel Shepard's one section (one of the earlier sources):

Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

Here's a similar section in the Zeitung article:

nehmen sie das beispiel kohle: weltweit lagern noch 12 000 gigatonnnen kohlenstoff im boden. Wollen wir das Ziel erreichen, dass sich die Erde keinesfalls um mehr als zwei grad erwarmt, durfen wir bis ende jahrhunderts aber nur noch etwa 230 gigatonnen in der atmosphare ablagern. Das bedeutet, dass ein Grossteil der kohlevorrate nicht mehr genutzt werden darf. Der wissenschaft ist das langst klar. In der politik traut sich das bislang niemand offen zu sagen.

Seuddeutcher Zeitung

And a crappy google translate:

Take the example of coal: Store worldwide still 12 000 gigatonnnen carbon in the soil. Do we want to achieve the objective that the earth not more than two warmed grad, we dare century to the end But only about 230 gigatons deposited in the atmosphere. This means that most of the coal reserves may no longer be used. The science is the long been clear. In the policy, the now no one dares to say openly.

And my more coherent version:

Take the example of coal: Worldwide 12 000 gigatons of carbon is still stored in the soil. If we want to achieve the goal that the earth warms not more than 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, we can only release about 230 gigatons into the atmosphere. This means that most of the coal reserves may no longer be used. The science has long been clear. In politics, no one has so far dared to say this openly.

In the second article:

Grundsätzlich ist es ein grosser Fehler, Klimapolitik abgetrennt von den grossen Themen der Globalisierung zu diskutieren. Der Klimagipfel in Cancún Ende des Monats ist keine Klimakonferenz, sondern eine der grössten Wirtschaftskonferenzen seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. Warum? Weil wir noch 11 000 Gigatonnen Kohlenstoff in den Kohlereserven unter unseren Füssen haben – und wir dürfen nur noch 400 Gigatonnen in der Atmosphäre ablagern, wenn wir das 2-Grad-Ziel halten wollen. 11 000 zu 400 – da führt kein Weg daran vorbei, dass ein Grossteil der fossilen Reserven im Boden bleiben muss.

and a translate:

Basically it is an enormous error to discuss climate politics separately from the major themes of globalization. The Climate Summit in Cancun, at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the most important economic conferences since World War II. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon stored in the coal reserves under our feet and we can at most shove 400 gigatons into the atmosphere if we want to hold to the 2 degree limit. 11,000 to 400 there is no way to avoid it, the major fraction of the fossil reserves must stay in the ground.

Just like yourself, Mez, the denialatii are little more than shysters. The science is sufficiently clear to act; and any action is, of course, politics with economic impacts. This is why any international agreement will be weak and pathetic (in contrast to the notion of some form of PTB conspiracy, lol). You see, once the science is clear the only choices are to ignore or act. Which is where we are at now - politics. Any semblance of science from the deniers is little more than PR FUD attempting to cloud the politics.

As usual, denier's reasoning is backwards. And the fact that your and others denial is mainly ideological (i.e., based on economics/politics) is pretty obvious.

Cheers.