Eaarth

[Arragonis]

Guess what.

All those people in Can't-Cun have agreed that this is a belief, and that they are going to educate our kids that it is the truth, no matter what anyone one of us believe.

The 16th Conference of the Parties on Climate Change (COP16) on Saturday reached its first consensus by approving a proposal on education, training and consciousness as part of efforts to mitigate climate change.

The working group charged with drawing up the document came up with a definitive proposal that would be approved by the COP16 implementation body and then included in the Cancun accord.

The proposal commits signatories to promote formal and informal education strategies covering the climate change phenomenon.

It also pledges to strengthen information and coordination regionally and locally to promote training programs for all citizens.

"One of the most important aspects of adaptation and mitigation is people's behavior," said Guatemala's Environment Minister Luis Ferrate.

"We have to create a citizenry that is more conscious of climate change, and that means education and training," he added.

Ferrate also said he was confident that trust between the parties would last for the remaining days of the COP16 which will close on Friday.

The COP16 opened on Nov. 29 in this resort city on Mexico's Caribbean coast, in the quest for a binding global agreement on tackling global climate change.

The conference has drawn government officials, business people as well as members of non-governmental organizations and research institutions from nearly 200 countries or regions.

Madness, pure bloody madness.

(Excuse my near swearing)

[t vago]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

By the way, one of the best timing markers in ice all over the world is the radioactive fallout from all the atmospheric nuclear tests. In some places that layer of ice has now melted away -- why would that be, I wonder?

Maybe it's for the same reason why the other planets in this Solar system have exhibited behavior consistent with increased heat absorption from the Sun?

The anthropomorphic global warming types have never been able to explain that one neatly away. They claim that the melting polar icecaps on Mars and increased temperature detected from Pluto and Jupiter could be caused by all sorts of different things, but somehow never ever from the Sun increasing its output, because they claim that the Sun never has varied its output.

These are the same types, mind you, that would manipulate raw temperature data to show their preferred output, and who would pressure scientific publications to not publish viewpoints that oppose the orthodox view of global warming.

[Thymeclock]

Guess what.

All those people in Can't-Cun have agreed that this is a belief, and that they are going to educate our kids that it is the truth, no matter what anyone one of us believe.

In the past century, ever since government mandated education was initiated, education = indoctrination and propaganda (AKA brainwashing) - which is essentially influencing people through emotion and belief, rather than teaching them to think.

I am now pulling the key words from the quote of the political conference that you cited:

"Parties...Change...consensus...proposal...trainin g...consciousness...mitigate...working group...definitive proposal...approved by the COP16 implementation body...signatories...the climate change phenomenon...pledges to strengthen information and coordination regionally and locally to promote training programs for all citizens...adaptation and mitigation (of) people's behavior..."We have to create a citizenry that is more conscious of climate change, and that means education and training"...trust between the parties...a binding global agreement on tackling global climate change... government officials, business people as well as members of non-governmental organizations and research institutions from nearly 200 countries or regions..."

Well, in the last phrase it's obvious that they all eat from the same trough.

All the above is the language of politics and coercion.

Now please, do you expect us to believe that this is only a benign suggestion, a voluntary measure of goodwill rather than the political, international, Leftist, coercive movement that it truly is?

Madness, pure bloody madness.

(Excuse my near swearing)

Don't worry. It's only considered swearing in Britain and has virtually no impact elsewhere. In the rest of the (relatively?) civilized Western world the "F" word is used very often (especially by insecure American politicians).

To quote Mr. Biden, our current American Vice President: "This is a big, F-ING deal!"

[NeilBlanchard]

You think global climate change is somehow a government conspiracy [or collusion]? Really?

I've got some windmills to tilt at...

[t vago]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

You think global climate change is somehow a government conspiracy? Really?

I've got some windmills to tilt at...

Nope, it's not a government conspiracy. Conspiracies by their very nature tend to be secret. This is all being done in the open.

However, you do have a point. Who would believe that governments would try to push a politically driven agenda that effectively restricts their citizens, in the name of saving the environment? After all, they've done such a good job of such basics as balancing their budgets.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

You think global climate change is somehow a government conspiracy? Really?

I've got some windmills to tilt at...

Neil: Your pathetic and desperate attempt to put words in the mouths of your opponents is very obvious. No one (but you) ever said it was a "conspiracy".

We are saying this movement has a politically motivated agenda sponsored by certain world powers, intended to impose an impact that is essentially socialist in its nature. The short term effect will provide political gain to those in power; the intended long term effect will be a loss to the pocketbooks, the standard of living and even the political power of the ordinary, middle class working person in America and the Western world.

You can return to tilting at your windmills, if you please.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

The controversy over the hacked emails at one research institute did not compromise the science.

The science was already compromised by the time the emails leaked out.
The oft-published hockey-stick was a manipulation of data.
Historic data has been "corrected".

There have been at least three investigations

Re-read Arragonis' earlier post.

By the way, one of the best timing markers in ice all over the world is the radioactive fallout from all the atmospheric nuclear tests. In some places that layer of ice has now melted away -- why would that be, I wonder?

How many ice layers do you think have melted away before these when it was warmer in the past ?

[NeilBlanchard]

So, how does this "hoax" work? I'm curious, please explain. When and who cooked it up? What are their motivations? How does it explain the data?

[t vago]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

What are their motivations?

You know, in your blind rush to defend AGW (anthropomorphic, or man-caused global warming), you seem to neglect that the same motivations that drive your characterization of Big Oil could also motivate the AGW crowd. Namely, profits. For instance, BBC, a major proponent of AGW, has been shown to have substantial (and by substantial I mean billions of dollars) amounts of money invested in companies that would do well if AGW legislation proposals were made into law.

Also, it represents a political power grab by the governments. How better to take power away from the masses and concentrate it among the ruling class, than to drum up some AGW scare and claim the only way to combat AGW is to pass horrendously restrictive legislation? That is also how AGW scientists get most of their funding, from governments through grants. If the government is insistent on pushing one side of this AGW debate, then of course they're going to deny research grants to people and institutions that might have questions about AGW.

It's like that video I posted earlier - that was actually made by a pro-environmental firm, with backing by major media companies and names. That's the attitude they display, that they alone are right, and everyone else who disagree with them should just disappear.

[NeilBlanchard]

I am not blind, and I am not rushing, thank you very much.

The scale of the profits from one day of oil companies completely swamps the "profits" that scientists could come by. I mean, scientists are either at endowed institutions, or they get grants; and they get paid, sure -- but where is the "profits"?

Accusing the scientists of just trying to get rich, is preposterous, and I'm sure they would find it insulting. They are scientists, and they are interested in working on figuring out how nature works, and why things are the way they are. They are not profit-driven. Oil companies, on the other hand are completely profit driven, and they make an immense amount of money.

So on balance, calling GCC a profit driven hoax is nonsensical, and stretches incredulity. It is some vague future profit vs a very real and very present profit making enterprise.

*******

Who came up with this "hoax"? Who is coordinating it? How does this explain the data? When was global climate change first hypothesized?