No wonder ‘climate’ wasn’t mentioned in the presidential debate

Don’t touch the third rail. Image: Wikipedia

While my favorite tweet this morning called climate “the third rail” (i.e. don’t touch the electrified rail or it will kill your presidential bid, there’s even a Wiki entry on it) the reality seems to be simply that it is too late to do much about ‘GHG induced climate change’.

From the University of the Witwatersrand

Too late to stop global warming by cutting emissions

Scientists argue for adaption policies

Governments and institutions should focus on developing adaption policies to address and mitigate against the negative impact of global warming, rather than putting the emphasis on carbon trading and capping greenhouse-gas emissions, argue Johannesburg-based Wits University geoscientist Dr Jasper Knight and Dr Stephan Harrison from the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom.

“At present, governments’ attempts to limit greenhouse-gas emissions through carbon cap-and-trade schemes and to promote renewable and sustainable energy sources are prob¬ably too late to arrest the inevitable trend of global warming,” the scientists write in a paper published online in the scientific journal, Nature Climate Change, on Monday, 14 October 2012.

The paper, entitled The Impacts of climate change on terrestrial Earth surface systems, is published in the Perspective section of Nature Climate Change and argues that much less attention is paid by policymakers to monitor, model and manage the impacts of climate change on the dynamics of Earth surface systems, including glaciers, rivers, mountains and coasts. “This is a critical omission, as Earth surface systems provide water and soil resources, sustain ecosystem services and strongly influence biogeochemical climate feedbacks in ways that are as yet uncertain,” the scientists write.

Knight and Harrison want governments to focus more on adaption policies because future impacts of global warming on land-surface stability and the sediment fluxes associated with soil erosion, river down-cutting and coastal erosion are relevant to sustainability, biodiversity and food security. Monitoring and modelling soil erosion loss, for example, are also means by which to examine problems of carbon and nutri¬ent fluxes, lake eutrophication, pollutant and coliform dispersal, river siltation and other issues. An Earth-systems approach can actively inform on these cognate areas of environmental policy and planning.

According to the scientists, Earth surface systems’ sensitivity to climate forcing is still poorly understood. Measuring this geomorphological sensi¬tivity will identify those systems and environments that are most vulnerable to climatic disturbance, and will enable policymakers and managers to prioritise action in these areas.

“This is particularly the case in coastal environments, where rocky and sandy coastlines will yield very different responses to climate forcing, and where coastal-zone management plans are usually based on past rather than future climatic patterns,” they argue.

The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change special report on extreme events and disasters and the forthcoming fifth assessment report, due 2013, include more explicit statements of the role of Earth surface systems in responding to and influencing climate forcing.

“However, monitoring of the response of these systems to climate forcing requires decadal-scale data sets of instrumented basins and under different climatic regimes worldwide. This will require a con-siderable international science effort as well as commitment from national governments,” Knight and Harrison urge.

###

Link to the paper: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1660.html

ABOUT DR JASPER KNIGHT

Dr Jasper Knight is a Senior Lecturer in Physical Geography in the School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies at Wits University in Johannesburg, South Africa. As a geoscientist, Knight’s research interests are on landscape responses to climate change during the last 15 000 years. He focusses on glaciers, coasts and mountains and their responses to climate change. Geographically, his focus is on the UK and Ireland, northwest USA, Australia, the European Alps, New Zealand, Spain and southern Africa.

About these ads

62 thoughts on “No wonder ‘climate’ wasn’t mentioned in the presidential debate

  1. Could this be an early attempt at a salvage operation? Are some alarmists now accepting that deep co2 cuts aren’t going to happen, and trying to get *something*?

  2. In other words, the menev…er benevolent government wants to use our tax dollars to create a cabinet level department called “Climate Change Mitigation” instead of “Climate Change Control” and pour money into shovel ready projects that “might” or “could” or “may” mitigate modeled climate change scenarios. This is different how?

    It’s all called buying votes and is no different than vote buying now and how our tax dollars are currently being spent related to climate.

  3. Adaptation is just going to be another rationale for eco-boondoggle spending, focused first of all on RESEARCH, endless well-funded research into the very complicated and thorny problem of adaptation from the central planner’s point of view. Or they could just let free people adapt to the climate for themselves as they always have. Nah, no money in that.

  4. The climate scientists need to wake up and read the writing on the wall -> we’re broke! We can’t afford to fund useless climate schemes, and adaption technologies will be developed by necessity, not because someone in a Climate Adaption Committee was paid tax dollars to sit there and think of them.

  5. Meh. A call for more money into his studies, taken from the prevent-global-warming studies.

    Possibly a subtle reference to the almost definite inability of current governments to enact any meaningful carbon reduction legislation in the near future, or, with the profable collapse of CAGW, a preemptive strike for funding to what used to be straightforward pro-environmental actions. Good, economic, on-going management.

  6. The only “mitigation” I am going to advocate is the mitigation in the BILLIONS of dollars government wastes on unnecessary CAGW climate “science” research.

    To U.S. readers – Please remember to VOTE appropriately this November to help stop the CAGW climate “science” madness.

  7. Anybody with grade school calculus and ability to read IEA, BP, Exxon Mobil etc. forecasts will notice that emissions will rise 40-60% by 2030. Barring WW3 or alien invasion.

    Developing world and people without electricity want to have all the stuff we have and I can’t blame them. The US and EU can cut emissions to zero by 2030 – and they will still rise globally.

  8. “where rocky and sandy coastlines will yield very different responses to climate forcing, and where coastal-zone management plans are usually based on past rather than future climatic patterns,” they argue….”

    Rocky coastlines erode differently to sandy coastlines, well I never, that must be worth a grant or three.

    It’s a neat pas-de-deux, coastal-zone management plans based on…. future climate patterns. And those future climate patterns, I presume, will come from the useless models.

  9. The only “negative impact of global warming” we’re likely to see this century will be the one caused by the “global warming” going negative.

  10. Near Earth surface temperatures have not increased for 17 years despite CO2 atmospheric fraction increasing significantly.
    There is no correlation between the CO2 level and Earth near surface temperature!
    Why restrict CO2, a harmless near inert plant food?
    Why spend money to mitigate the CO2 increase of a harmless near inert plant food?

  11. So we have to slog our way through this article full of polysyllabic psychobabble to get to the final sentence, which is the payoff:

    “This will require a con-siderable international science effort as well as commitment from national governments,” Knight and Harrison urge.”

    Frank synopsis of the whole article:
    “We failed to put over the idea of man-made globale warming, now let’s cash in on publicly-funded boondoggles.”

  12. Obama doesn’t want you to know what he’s going to do if he’s re-elected. If he told you, you wouldn’t vote for him.

  13. I have a couple of questions. How certain are we that the climate will begin to cool because of the sun’s activity? How long will it take the AGW community to notice that the temperature is going down?

  14. “No wonder ‘climate’ wasn’t mentioned in the presidential debate.”

    Well, given that
    “The 18th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC and the 8th session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol will take place from Monday, 26 November to Friday, 7 December 2012″
    And;
    “The next United States presidential election is to be held on Tuesday, November 6″,

    It would not surprise me if Climategate 3.0 will be, say November 1’st ?

    That will give people some time to run for cover for the election, AND to give the Doh’a conference some inputs.

  15. Or is it Mission Accomplished?
    CO2 emission levels are already at 1990 levels which was the goal.
    Plus oceans are shrinking and the temperature has been the seam for 16 years.

  16. “Knight and Harrison want governments to focus more on adaption policies because future impacts of global warming on land-surface stability and the sediment fluxes associated with soil erosion, river down-cutting and coastal erosion are relevant to sustainability, biodiversity and food security.”

    In other words, since they cannot prove there is AGW they will pretend it is so and go straight into “mitigation mode”. No use wasting any more time trying to convinve the rubes, so they will just take away their SUVs, cheeseburgers, as well as reduce their energy supplies.

  17. Obama implied his effort to combat Climate Change by referring to “clean energy” and clean coal productionand utilizationin his debate. He lied when he said, “We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment.” According to the U.S.Department of Energy (DOE) U.S.Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports,coal production and coal employment have decreased since the inauguration of Obama and the Obama Administration policies with regard to the coal industry.

    2008 Total U.S. Coal Production: 1,171,809 (Thousand Short Tons)
    2009 Total U.S. Coal Production: 1,074,923 (Thousand Short Tons)
    2010 Total U.S. Coal Production: 1,084,368 (Thousand Short Tons)
    2011 Total U.S. Coal Production: 1,095,628 (Thousand Short Tons)

    2010 8-Month Total 714,828 (Thousand Short Tons)
    2011 8-Month Total 718,761 (Thousand Short Tons)
    2012 8-Month Total 684,777 (Thousand Short Tons)

    Number of Employees
    2009 86,195
    2010 87,755
    Percent Change -1.8

    These reports on coal employment end in 2009-201.For some reason, the Energy Information Administration seems to be unable or unwilling to publish a report and information on the employment numbers for the last two years of 2011-2012 before the election.

    The reader can decide whetherthese Obama’s claims in the debate were truthful, untruthful, or perhaps a downright deliberate lie?

  18. It is about time. If only we had acted sooner, we could have avoided the tragedy that came to be known as “The Grand Canyon.” See what happens when you don’t prepare for soil erosion?

  19. The warmists have boxed themselves into a corner.

    If AGW is as bad as they say it is then we have to go with adaptation because (simply put) China, India and the rest of the 3rd world will continue to emit for another 50+ years.

    And if AGW is not as bad as they say it is then that reduces the impetus to reduce emissions (especially if China, India and the rest of the 3rd world will be anyway!)

    Reduce consumption through inefficiencies because that saves money. But don’t do it (at a high cost to the economy) in a mistaken plan to save the earth from something which may (or may not) be happening.

  20. Renewables are demonstrably destructive to the energy supply.

    Name one country where renewables have done anything but damage domestic industry and production and needlessly impoverish consumers.

    Repackaging wind and solar as bringing “energy independence” was the sales pitch made during the debates – you just have to read between the lines. The term “clean energy” is also a reference to an implicit assumption that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

    Renewable energy is simply being offered as a big nasty disgusting Keynsian scheme to use government mandates and spending to create employment in the energy and car sectors, and this is just as bad as doing it in order to reduce carbon emissions! In fact, the case can be made that it is an even worse evil, given our clear knowledge and understanding of what has already happened to Europeans who have had their energy supply ravaged by worthless wind turbines, and who face life-threatening black-outs.

  21. The problem is deciding what climate changes have to be “adapted”? Once one adaption is made, what effect will this have on other features. For every advantage gained by some area of the globe somewhere else will be disadvantaged (or they will claim to be even if they’re not). The international court will have a field day! Who decides what is the perfect climate, and where and for whom?

  22. Pardon if this reply appears twice.. the first appears lost to me.

    You guys still aren’t getting it. The idea is to regulate carbon on a carbon based planet. Co2 was just the in. The truly scary part is “calculating your carbon footprint” .. that means they can tax you for everything you do, eat or breathe.. I’m pretty sure that agenda is slithering by unnoticed at the moment, waiting for the sky is falling, pass this now mentality to be evoked. .

  23. “Governments and institutions should focus on developing adaption policies to address and mitigate against the negative impact of global warming”

    Next step: React to things that really happen and build a dike, dig a canal, drill through a mountain, move when the water is too high or when there is too little of it, etcetera, just like we did the past thousands of years. That’s what always has worked and what will work in the future.

    People are an adaptive and inventive species,
    quite capable of making and keeping places livable.

  24. thelastdemocrat says:
    October 17, 2012 at 11:42 am
    It is about time. If only we had acted sooner, we could have avoided the tragedy that came to be known as “The Grand Canyon.” See what happens when you don’t prepare for soil erosion?

    According to the Democrats, the Grand Canyon is Bush’s fault.

  25. “Monitoring and modelling soil erosion loss, for example, are also means by which to examine problems of carbon and nutri¬ent fluxes, lake eutrophication, pollutant and coliform dispersal, river siltation and other issues.”

    Other issues? The ones mentioned (as fabricated as they are…) aren’t enough? Hmmmm, yes, let’s get after developing a coliform dispersal model….then we can fertilize oceans and watch the pretty colors.

  26. Hansen and cronies told us human-caused global warming was happening, and we had to act now to cut CO₂ levels to stop it, before it became catastrophic.

    As seen by the rising atmospheric CO₂ concentrations, we have done nothing. In response, global warming stopped.

    Now we are told the global warming is unstoppable, it will continue even if we cut emissions, so we are left with adaptation. We know global warming is unstoppable as science luminaries from Al Gore to Prince Charles told us we only had X days to act to stop it before COP (fill in the number), or by voting for this piece of legislation, or before or by (fill in the blank). And we didn’t act. The deadlines passed. Therefore it is unstoppable and will continue, even if it has stopped.

    Somewhere someone tried folding the (C)AGW paradigm back onto itself, and didn’t notice the logic break when it snapped.

  27. “Too late to stop global warming by cutting emissions…”

    Lets expand that for you. What it’s ‘too late for’ is that it’s too late to make vast sums out of schemes to cut emissions. People have cottoned on to that scam. And the temperature isn’t supporting us any more.

    So we need to move onto the next scam – making lots of money by selling fake schemes to ‘adapt’ to climate change. With any luck we can milk that for longer….

  28. They have begun to notice, that we have begun to notice that World temperatures have not gone up as they forecast and indeed have not gone up for 16 years or so. To salvage anything from their self-made disaster they have to embark on a new variant of the original scam. The climate scientists are beginning to wake up and have seen the writing on the wall. The World is bankrupt! The World hasn’t the money to fund pointless climate schemes. They hope to switch to equally useless adaption technologies to continue the flow of subsidies from a UN sponsored Climate Adaption Committee. Your taxes may be at work again creating further mischief.

  29. What are the negative impacts of global warming? Less ferocious polar bears? Less icebergs to sink ships? Different beachfront property? Less reliance on fossil fuels for heating homes in the winter? Less tornadoes and hurricanes? Longer growing seasons and larger crop yields? I’m terrified!!!!

  30. Zeke says:

    “Repackaging wind and solar as bringing “energy independence” was the sales pitch made during the debates…..”

    Associating wind and solar with energy independence is utterly ridiculous. If one takes the time to look at the Energy Information Agency’s website (www.EIA.gov), you can see that ALMOST NONE of the crude oil we import is used to generate electricity. And you can’t run your car or truck on wind and solar unless you happen to have an electric one that can plug into a outlet that provides juice from a wind or solar farm I suppose. But you probably won’t get that far on one charge, and electric cars have never taken off in the automobile market anyway—not even the Chevy Volt. Plus you can’t easy recharge away from home. I have yet to see a recharging station anywhere I’ve driven in my state.

    The deception from the Green Movement almost makes me sick.

  31. Thanks to natural gas and the market, US emissions of CO2 are at 1992 levels. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-impact-co2-emissions-us-drop-20-year-low

    Government keeps picking losers (Solyndra and A123, electric car battery manufacturer) when it should get out of the way. Without market distortions, the US might have millions of natural gas cars, like the natural-gas powered Honda Civic, for which Honda is offering a $3000 incentive. Natural gas is clean, plentiful, and inexpensive at $2 a gallon; it has the fewest externalities of any fuel source. Without market distortions, we might have been well on our way to energy independence and free of foreign oil.

    Thanks government!

  32. Jarmo says: October 17, 2012 at 10:28 am
    Anybody with grade school calculus and ….

    I’ve been out of school for a long time; but grade school calculus. Times have really changed.

  33. Governments should do absolutely nothing, but let the market decide. Market solutions are far more adaptable and ingenious than governments ever can be. As has been noted, look at Obama’s record – all his ‘green’ interventionist choices have failed or are failing.

  34. So basically it’s too late to do anything to prevent that thing that doesn’t appear to be noticeable or causing any serious problems, so instead we must apply vast resources to adapt to the thing that doesn’t appear to be noticeable or causing any serious problems.

    I don’t *ever* want to hear the question “why do people distrust scientists” again. Ever.

    If you want trust, be trustworthy. It’s not rocket science.

  35. Seems that the authors have decided to vote for the “adaptation” rather than the “dirty weather” meme, Trenberth & Gore are pushing the latter, not so many (yet) attempting to hijack the former?
    The Matthew England approach. Suddenly discovering earth systems as if this is something new, but morphing it with ” … future impacts of global warming on land-surface stability .. ” [oops - GW instead of CC] and “Earth surface systems’ sensitivity to climate forcing is still poorly understood.”
    “This is particularly the case in coastal environments, where rocky and sandy coastlines will yield very different responses to climate forcing, and where coastal-zone management plans are usually based on past rather than future climatic patterns,”
    Wow. Is this supposed to be some sort of revelation?
    Tens of thousands of people have been studying coastal geomorphology for decades … centuries …

  36. And here I thought the earth had quit warming 16 years ago.

    So are these measures 16 years too early, or 16 years too late?

  37. “should focus on developing adaption policies to address and mitigate against the negative impact of global warming,”

    Of course, this sounds good until you realize that there is no adaptation to be done, as we are not warming. Thus, their needs relating to mitigating warming or developing green alternative energies will be nothing but another excuse for a government boondoggles and crony capitalism. WInd and solar simply cannot and will not survive except in rare specific conditions as any sort of useful energy sources. They will always be ancillary sources to take the load off the grid, but they cannot constitute the grid itself. The sun sets and the wind dies. Of course the myth and lie that we are running out of carbon fuels will persist despite the reality to the contrary.

    YOU CANNOT BUILD A RELIABLE ENERGY SUPPLY FROM UNRELIABLE ENERGY SOURCES.

  38. thelastdemocrat says:
    October 17, 2012 at 11:42 am
    It is about time. If only we had acted sooner, we could have avoided the tragedy that came to be known as “The Grand Canyon.” See what happens when you don’t prepare for soil erosion?
    ——
    Sad but true
    cn

  39. “According to the scientists, Earth surface systems’ sensitivity to climate forcing is still poorly understood.”
    I’m not even a scientist and I knew that. He must have just started reading WUWT. It’s one of the “unknowns that are known” here.

    “Measuring this geomorphological sensi¬tivity will identify those systems and environments that are most vulnerable to climatic disturbance, and will enable policymakers and managers to prioritise action in these areas.”
    Not being a scientist or policymaker or manager, I have a minor level of confusion as to what the author intended to convey. How do they recognize and measure geomorphological sensi¬tivity? And specifically, what constitutes a climatic disturbance?
    cn

  40. Steve C says:
    October 17, 2012 at 11:03 am

    The only “negative impact of global warming” we’re likely to see this century will be the one caused by the “global warming” going negative.

    Well spoke!

    Merovign says:
    October 17, 2012 at 3:06 pm

    So basically it’s too late to do anything to prevent that thing that doesn’t appear to be noticeable or causing any serious problems, so instead we must apply vast resources to adapt to the thing that doesn’t appear to be noticeable or causing any serious problems.

    I don’t *ever* want to hear the question “why do people distrust scientists” again. Ever.

    If you want trust, be trustworthy. It’s not rocket science.

    But is it rocket surgery?
    :p

  41. Grant says:
    October 17, 2012 at 2:14 pm
    Thanks to natural gas and the market, US emissions of CO2 are at 1992 levels. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-impact-co2-emissions-us-drop-20-year-low

    Government keeps picking losers (Solyndra and A123, electric car battery manufacturer) when it should get out of the way. Without market distortions, the US might have millions of natural gas cars, like the natural-gas powered Honda Civic, for which Honda is offering a $3000 incentive. Natural gas is clean, plentiful, and inexpensive at $2 a gallon; it has the fewest externalities of any fuel source. Without market distortions, we might have been well on our way to energy independence and free of foreign oil.

    Thanks government!
    ——————————–
    Grant, you sound surprised. That’s how the system works. We still own GM (another loser)

  42. The arguments made by the two scientists is convincing and well outline but they fail to mention who will fund the new policies because new policies will require more research and this will cost the government more money. I think it’s better to improve the methods that are already in place. Like how to reduce more carbon emission and capping more greenhouse gas emission. People in different areas are affected by global warming differently so instead of trying to solve the problem in a global scale they should try to solve it on a local scale first.

  43. climate change is something we cannot ignore. we are now experiencing the impacts. there intensity of natural disasters have increased as well as the severity therefore we do really need to start focusing on mitigation and adative methods that are sustainable. first world countries are not that worried because they are developed and they have the necessary measures to adapt to climate change impacts while third world countries are the most vulnerable to the impacts. if the cost of implementing climate change mitigation measures is lower that the cost of the damages caused by climate change then we really have to start working on those measures. i think what needs to be done is to find cheap and efficient alternatives to climate change impacts because there really is warming. if there wasnt then what is causing the recent droughts, high frequency of floods and other natural disasters. we need to start acting now for our sake and the future generations sake.

  44. pkatt says:
    October 17, 2012 at 12:28 pm
    “You guys still aren’t getting it.
    _______________
    We get it.

  45. Third rail, indeed.

    Leroux is like a third rail in Wikipedia. Hope to do an article about my recent experiences there, and what I’m proposing, in order to preserve and honour Leroux and his work. He really deserves to be better known, not just as a name, but for the work he did, both for Climate Science in its pure state, and for opposing the IPCC corruption with the arguments from the science itself.

  46. Lady R and ruthless;
    limiting carbon emissions has NO data to support it. It is pointless, and murderously costly. Emissions rose fast for the last 16 years, and temperature flatlined, and looks to be headed downwards for a few decades. This is FATAL to the whole decarbonization meme and agenda.

    It is therefore URGENT that we stop p***ing trillions of dollars up against the wall by mandating anything whatsoever to do with CO2.

  47. ruthless:

    At October 18, 2012 at 1:24 am you assert

    climate change is something we cannot ignore. we are now experiencing the impacts. there intensity of natural disasters have increased as well as the severity therefore we do really need to start focusing on mitigation and adative methods that are sustainable.

    Climate has always changed everywhere and it always will.

    There is no evidence of man-made global warming from emissions of fossil fuels; none, zilch, nada.

    The intensity of natural disasters has not increased but they now have more “severity” because there are more people to be affected by them than in the past.

    Please provide evidence if you want to make further fallacious assertions on WUWT in future.

    Richard

  48. Adaption policies to mitigate the negative effects of global warming are important because of the supporting evidence of climate change,example increased frequency of heavy rainfall in Cape Town.Adaption policies are important in preparing affected areas in terms of required infastructre, natural disaster management response time and other sectors that may be afected by subsequent floding e.g. farming.This is a short term way of dealing with the climate changes on a local scale and a smaller time scale because as the local climate continues to change,at varying rates with varying locations adaption policies will have to evolve to accomodate “new “local climate forced by global warming.
    Promoting the capping of carbon emmisions contributes towards lessening or slowing down the effect of global warming in years to come i.e. on a longer time scale.This means that the effect of capping carbon emmisions may possibly not be observed in the lifetime of todays adult but rather in their children or grand childrens lifetime.Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere results in intensified greenhouse effect that will result in heating up of the earth.

  49. “However, monitoring of the response of these systems to climate forcing requires decadal-scale data sets of instrumented basins and under different climatic regimes worldwide. This will require a con-siderable international science effort as well as commitment from national governments,” Knight and Harrison urge”

    There it is.

    The decree that there is a lot of “stuff” for all the regimes (bureaucrats, academia, friends & family) to do forever.
    They just make up continuous reasons to keep making things up, so they can keep monitoring all things weather and yammering on about climate with lofty certainty they are doing something besides nothing.
    They aren’t.
    Take every shred of climate work over the past 25 years by everyone and stack it all up. All the money, time, people and is has to be worst investment in human history by an enormous margin.
    I’ll presume it has produced something.
    But there is no other human activity which has invested so much to produce so little for mankind.
    This record will stand deep into the future. I know I’ve been there. :)

    Another record is the amount of shame shared by so many. As diluted as it is over the many every individual involved earned their hefty share of blame and shame.

    Take any sizable share of that waste of biblical proportion and commit it to worthy work and imagine what it could have produced. Opportunities for medical advancement, energy development and societal progression around the world was ripped off. For what? For monitoring weather that just happens.

    They might as well have been monitoring the shifting sands of the Sahara or stars in the night sky for astrological meanings.

  50. Amy says: ”Adaption policies to mitigate the negative effects of global warming are important because of the supporting evidence of climate change,example increased frequency of heavy rainfall in Cape Town”

    Amy, because is no such a thing as GLOBAL warming – cannot have any effect on the climate; only effect is on people that believe in those lies.

    B] ”supporting ”evidence of climate change” – that is completely separate issue, one doesn’t need evidences that the climate is changing – climate is in constant change – big / small climatic changes – good / bad climatic changes are happening on different places on the planet all the time. BUT, using ”climatic changes” to con about the phony GLOBAL warming; is the mother of all lies!!! The most destructive lie since the Homo-erectus invented the language.

    .c] ”example increased frequency of heavy rainfall in Cape Town”
    does that mean: if frequency of heavy rain decreases – should be a proof of GLOBAL cooling?! On many places around the planet, rainfall is decreasing = today we have few global warmings and dozen global coolings on the planet, simultaneously…?! see how stupid your lies sound?

    Localized warmings / coolings happen always; GLOBAL, NEVER!!! But, because the shonky science in the past has being confusing ”localized” as GLOBAL; is the precursor of all Warmist evil. Please, don’t put climatic changes together with the phony GLOBAL warmings! Climatic changes are a natural phenomena / GLOBAL warmings are a phenomenal LIE! All proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, on my website.

  51. ruthless on October 18, 2012 at 1:24 am,
    Amy on October 18, 2012 at 5:00 pm…

    At least the auto-scripts are getting better, as in the second one capitalized the first letter of the sentences. Why they can’t get the space after the sentence-ending period is a small mystery. Perhaps the script kiddie’s algorithms get confused, as they are using spaces after abbreviation periods, and the context checker can’t handle spaces after other periods.

    Meanwhile I still do as I was taught long ago in typing class, and use two spaces after a sentence-ending period, even though the comment systems will compress to a single space.

    So if the robo-commenter’s programmer can’t handle a simple carriage return at the end of a sentence (if they even know what a CR is), try double spaces, see how that works. The content will still be laughable with the automated assembly detectable, but people will be more likely to read it instead of immediately dismissing it as incoherent ranting.

    Afterward you can work on incorporating apostrophes.

  52. [thelastdemocrat says:
    October 17, 2012 at 11:42 am
    It is about time. If only we had acted sooner, we could have avoided the tragedy that came to be known as “The Grand Canyon.” See what happens when you don’t prepare for soil erosion?]

    Don’t forget the “Great Lakes”. We need to prepare now to stop another glaciation.
    /sarc

  53. I believe the best ‘conservative’ response to the question “Do you believe in Global Warming?” would be something like “Yes, I believe the Climate Research scientists are essentially correct when they report that average global temperatures have risen about eight-tenths of a degree C since 1880.”

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

Comments are closed.