Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

Status
Not open for further replies.
Violent Volcanic Blasts Ripped Through Antarctic Ice Sheet Twice

SAN FRANCISCO — Volcanoes punched through a remote part of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet twice in the last 50,000 years, according to research presented Monday (Dec. 15) here at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

Distinctive layers of brown ash in a deep ice core are evidence of violent volcanic explosions that occurred about 22,470 and 45,381 years ago, near the West Antarctic divide. Their source, however, is a mystery.

The closest active volcanoes that rise above the ice are more than 185 miles (300 kilometers) away, said study leader Nels Iverson, a volcanologist and graduate student at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology in Socorro. Powerful eruptions from these peaks have dusted the West Antarctica divide with ash, leaving glassy shards embedded in younger layers of the ice core. However, the ash particles described here Monday are too blocky and coarse to travel long distances, even on Antarctica's fierce winds. The ash is also chemically different from eruptions at the distant volcanoes. And to draw the circle in tighter, neither ash layer appears in an ice core drilled about 60 miles (100 km) to the southeast. [Fire and Ice: Images of Volcano-Ice Encounters]

"It had to be from somewhere close," Iverson told Live Science. "Ash particles that travel far are shaped like little parachutes. These are like your fists trying to float on air."

Iverson said the rough, glassy shards embedded in the ice are typical of phreatomagmatic eruptions, the spectacular outbursts that occur when lava meets water. This kind of eruption killed 57 people at Japan's Mount Ontake volcano in September, when water was superheated to steam. Similarly, when lava emerges under glaciers or ice caps, the molten rock melts ice into water and explodes, shattering lava into microscopic bits and flinging ash into the air.

Violent Volcanic Blasts Ripped Through Antarctic …
Blocky ash particles indicate a lava-ice eruption.
Depending on the ice thickness and eruption size, it's possible for volcanic eruptions to have penetrated the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, said volcanologist Ben Edwards of Dickinson College in Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the study.

Magmas such as the basanite (an igneous rock) from the 45,000-year-old ash layer can melt three to six times their own mass in ice, he said. "The key thing is ice thickness," Edwards said. "Really thick ice makes it more difficult for the magma to explode."

Iverson suspects the volcanic source is buried close to the divide, where the ice sheet is more than 10,000 feet (3,050 meters) thick. There are three volcanoes entombed in ice within about 125 miles (200 km), and even more could be present.

Earthquakes suggest magma still churns beneath a previously unknown subglacial volcano in West Antarctica's Executive Committee Range, which was uncloaked when shaking started in 2010. Gravity and magnetic anomalies hint at nine subglacial volcanoes near the West Antarctic divide, John Behrendt, a geologist at the University of Colorado, Boulder reported today (Dec. 17) at the meeting. Behrendt was not involved in the ice core study.

If a volcano erupts under the ice sheet, it could melt out millions of gallons of water, possibly destabilizing major glaciers. However, scientists don't yet agree on the potential effects of a subglacial eruption.

Violent Volcanic Blasts Ripped Through Antarctic …
A map showing the deep West Antarctic divide ice core, the Byrd ice core and the location of three s …
"We're trying to understand the implications for the stability of the ice sheet," Iverson said.

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet grew up and around an abundance of active volcanoes. For instance, the coastal volcanoes Mount Berlin, Mount Takahe and Mount Siple have erupted some 20 times in the past 571,000 years, according to ash layers in ice cores. Geothermal heating has cooked the bottom of the ice sheet in the vicinity of some ice-covered volcanoes, according to recent studies. For instance, at the West Antarctic divide drilling site, researchers recovered about 70,000 years of ice, not 100,000 years as was expected, because the bedrock was hotter than they had assumed.

Follow Becky Oskin @beckyoskin. Follow Live Science @livescience, Facebook & Google+. Originally published on Live Science.

The World's Five Most Active Volcanoes
Album: Stunning Photos of Antarctic Ice
50 Amazing Facts About Antarctica
Copyright 2014 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 
Global-warming true believers are in denial

I have a theory as to why Americans don’t worry all that much about global warming: High-profile purveyors of climate change don’t push for reductions in greenhouse gases so much as focus on berating people who do not agree with their opinions. They call themselves champions of “the science” — yet focus on ideology more than tangible results.

Their language is downright evangelical. Recently, science guy Bill Nye joined other experts who objected to the media’s use of the term “climate skeptic.” They released a statement that concluded, “Please stop using the word 'skeptic’ to describe deniers.” Deniers? Like Judas?

Why, they even hear voices from science. “Science has spoken,” U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon recently proclaimed. Some men think God talks to them; others hear Science.

Back to my original point: San Francisco liberal plutocrat Tom Steyer has called climate change “the defining issue of our generation.” He told the Hill, “Really, what we’re trying to do is to make a point that people who make good decisions on this should be rewarded, and people should be aware that if they do the wrong thing, the American voters are watching and they will be punished.”

You would assume from the above statement that Steyer wants to punish businesses or people who emit a super-size share of greenhouse gases. But no, Steyer’s big push for 2014 was to spend some $73 million to defeat Republicans who support the Keystone XL pipeline. But stopping Keystone won’t reduce America’s dependence on fossil fuels by one drop. It simply will make it harder to tap into Canadian tar-sands oil.

On Monday, state Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León said he plans on introducing a measure to require that the California Public Employees’ Retirement System sell off any coal-related investments. In recent years, demands for disinvestment have visited universities. In May, Stanford voted to forgo investments in coal mining. Student groups have been pushing for Harvard and the University of California to dump fossil-fuel assets as well. It’s a good sign that those efforts have not prevailed at either institution. It’s a bad sign that de León has found a new soft target — CalPERS.

The problem, Harvard Professor Robert N. Stavins wrote for the Wall Street Journal, is: “Symbolic actions often substitute for truly effective actions by allowing us to fool ourselves into thinking we are doing something meaningful about a problem when we are not.” Disinvestment also does nothing to reduce energy use.

Matt Dempsey of Oil Sands Fact Check sees disinvestment as the new environmental talking point for 2016 races. It requires no visible personal sacrifice — while feeding activists’ sense of self-righteousness. Its emptiness is part of the allure. De León even told reporters that he’d write a bill that in no way “hurts investment strategies.”

Then there are the conferences — Kyoto, Copenhagen, Rio de Janeiro. The venues for Earth summits would make for a great episode of “Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego?” The scions of science ought to get acquainted with Skype. If the future of the planet is at stake, shouldn’t the champions of science at least look as if they’re trying to curb their emissions?

Debra J. Saunders is a San Francisco Chronicle columnist. E-mail: dsaunders@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @DebraJSaunders
 
Scientists are making lots of news recently by blaming Antarctic ice shelf melting on your SUV. Only problem is that this has been going on for centuries.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    73.4 KB · Views: 47
The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,
“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.“

- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    42.6 KB · Views: 28
[ Journal Coverage ]

Energy Policy – Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (October 2014)
Energy Policy – Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (October 2014)
Science & Education – Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (August 2013)

[ Media Coverage ]

American Thinker – Climate Consensus Con Game (February 17, 2014)
Breitbart – Obama’s ’97 Percent’ Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)
Canada Free Press – Sorry, global warmists: The ’97 percent consensus’ is complete fiction (May 27, 2014)
Financial Post – Meaningless consensus on climate change (September 19, 2013)
Financial Post – The 97%: No you don’t have a climate consensus (September 25, 2013)
Forbes – Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims (May 30, 2013)
Fox News – Balance is not bias — Fox News critics mislead public on climate change (October 16, 2013)
Herald Sun – That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama (May 22, 2013)
Power Line – Breaking: The “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard (May 18, 2014)
Spiked – Global warming: the 97% fallacy (May 28, 2014)
The Daily Caller – Where Did ’97 Percent’ Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014)
The Daily Telegraph – 97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock! (July 23, 2013)
The Guardian – The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (June 6, 2014)
The New American – Global Warming “Consensus”: Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)
The New American – Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW” Debunked (June 5, 2013)
The New American – Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% “Consensus” Fraud (May 20, 2014)
The Patriot Post – The 97% Consensus — A Lie of Epic Proportions (May 17, 2013)
The Patriot Post – Debunking the ‘97% Consensus’ & Why Global Cooling May Loom (August 7, 2014)
The Press-Enterprise – Don’t be swayed by climate change ‘consensus’ (September 10, 2013)
The Tampa Tribune – About that ’97 percent': It ain’t necessarily so (May 19, 2014)
The Wall Street Journal – The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’ (May 26, 2014)
Troy Media – Bandwagon psychology root of 97 per cent climate change “consensus” (February 18, 2014)
WND – Black Jesus’ Climate Consensus Fantasy (June 25, 2013)
 
[ Organization Coverage ]

Competitive Enterprise Institute – Consensus Shmensus (September 5, 2013)
Cornwall Alliance – Climate Consensus? Nonsense! (June 16, 2014)
Friends of Science – Friends of Science Challenge the Cook Study for Bandwagon Fear Mongering on Climate Change and Global Warming (May 21, 2013)
Friends of Science – Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus (May 28, 2013)
Friends of Science – 97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths & Social Proofs (PDF) (February 3, 2014)
Friends of Science – Climate Change Is a Fact of Life, the Science Is Not Settled and 97% Consensus on Global Warming Is a Math Myth (February 4, 2014)
George C. Marshall Institute – The Corruption of Science (October 5, 2014)
John Locke Foundation – The 97% consensus on global warming exposed (July 3, 2014)
Liberty Fund – David Friedman on the 97% Consensus on Global Warming (February 27, 2014)
Global Warming Policy Foundation – Consensus? What Consensus? (PDF) (September 2, 2013)
Global Warming Policy Foundation – Fraud, Bias And Public Relations: The 97% ‘Consensus’ And Its Critics (PDF) (September 8, 2014)
National Center for Policy Analysis – The Big Lie of the “Consensus View” on Global Warming (July 30, 2014)
National Center for Public Policy Research – Do 97% of All Climate Scientists Really Believe Mankind is Causing Catastrophic Global Warming? (February 10, 2014)
Principia Scientific International – Exposed: Academic Fraud in New Climate Science Consensus Claim (May 23, 2013)
The Heartland Institute – What 97 Percent of Climate Scientists Do (May 12, 2014)

[ Weblog Coverage ]

Australian Climate Madness – ‘Get at the truth, and not fool yourself’ (May 29, 2014)
Bishop Hill – ‘Landmark consensus study’ is incomplete (May 27, 2013)
Climate Audit – UnderCooked Statistics (May 24, 2013)
Climate Etc. – The 97% ‘consensus’ (July 26, 2013)
Climate Etc. – The 97% ‘consensus': Part II (July 27, 2013)
Climate Etc. – The 97% feud (July 27, 2014)
Climate Resistance – Tom Curtis Doesn’t Understand the 97% Paper (July 27, 2013)
JoNova – Cook’s fallacy “97% consensus” study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for (May 17, 2013)
JoNova – That’s a 0.3% consensus, not 97% (July 1, 2013)
JoNova – “Honey, I shrunk the consensus” – Monckton takes action on Cooks paper (September 24, 2013)
JoNova – John Cook’s consensus data is so good his Uni will sue you if you discuss it (May 18, 2014)
JoNova – Uni Queensland defends legal threats over “climate” data they want to keep secret (May 21, 2014)
JoNova – Cook scores 97% for incompetence on a meaningless consensus (June 6, 2014)
José Duarte (Ph.D.) – Cooking stove use, housing associations, white males, and the 97% (August 28, 2014)
José Duarte (Ph.D.) – The art of evasion (September 9, 2014)
Making Science Public – What’s behind the battle of received wisdoms? (July 23, 2013)
Popular Technology.net – 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists’ Papers, according to the scientists that published them (May 21, 2013)
Popular Technology.net – The Statistical Destruction of the 97% Consensus (June 1, 2013)
Popular Technology.net – Cook’s 97% Consensus Study Game Plan Revealed (June 4, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – The Consensus Project: An update (August 16, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Biases in consensus data (August 24, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – More irregularities in the consensus data (August 24, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Open letter to the Vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland (August 27, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Bootstrap results for initial ratings by the Consensus Project (August 28, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – The 97% consensus (May 10, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – My First Audioslide (May 20, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – A new contribution to the consensus debate (June 4, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – 24 errors? (June 8, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – More Cook data released (July 21, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Days of rater bias (July 23, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Days of rater bias (ctd) July 28, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Another chapter on the 97% nonsensus (August 1, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – ERL does not want you to read this (October 14, 2014)
The Blackboard – I Do Not Think it Means What You Think it Means (May 15, 2013)
The Blackboard – On the Consensus (May 17, 2013)
The Blackboard – Nir Shaviv: One of the 97% (May 17, 2013)
The Blackboard – Why Symmetry is Bad (May 19, 2013)
The Blackboard – Possible Self-Selection Bias in Cook: Author responses. (May 20, 2013)
The Blackboard – Bias Author Survey: Pro AGW (May 21, 2013)
The Lid – Claim 97% of Climate Scientists Believe In Global Warming is TOTALLY BOGUS! (May 21, 2014)
The State of the Climate – Cook’s survey not only meaningless but also misleading (May 17, 2013)
WUWT – The Collapsing ‘Consensus’ (May 22, 2013)
WUWT – Self admitted cyber thief Peter Gleick is still on the IOP board that approved the Cook 97% consensus paper (June 4, 2013)
WUWT – ‘Quantifying the consensus on global warming in the literature': a comment (June 24, 2013)
WUWT – On the 97 percenters: ‘You Must Admit, They Were Careful’ (July 28, 2013)
WUWT – What Is Cook’s Consensus? (July 29, 2013)
WUWT – Cooks ‘97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors (September 3, 2013)
WUWT – 97% Climate consensus ‘denial': the debunkers debunked (September 9, 2013)
WUWT – Join my crowd-sourced complaint about the ‘97% consensus’ (September 20, 2013)
WUWT – The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey (November 20, 2013)
WUWT – 97% of pictures are worth 1000 climate words (February 26, 2014)
WUWT – John Cook’s 97% consensus claim is about to go ‘pear-shaped’ (May 10, 2014)
WUWT – An Open Letter puts the University of Queensland in a dilemma over John Cook’s ‘97% consensus’ paper (May 22, 2014)
WUWT – The climate consensus is not 97% – it’s 100% (June 11, 2014)
WUWT – The disagreement over what defines ‘endorsment of AGW’ by Cook et al. is revealed in raters remarks, and it sure isn’t a 97% consensus (June 24, 2014)
WUWT – If 97% of Scientists Say Global Warming is Real, 100% Say It Has Nearly Stopped (November 18, 2014)

Compiled by populartechnology.net and reproduced here with permission
 
The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals

Your joking right? FYI your side tried to debunk this and had an epic fail.
Tol your leader reviewed the paper and came up with a stunning result..... It was not 97% it was 91%. At least that is what he thought.... (must have had a thought bubble when he woke up one afternoon) Have you read his paper? I didn't think so. You can... here is a link to go read it yourself
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3vgLnArj2aXYjdtUkQxSXpVV2c/edit?pli=1

Here is the good part.....
After three rounds of rating were completed, a sample of 1,000 of the 7,970 papers rated 4 were reassessed, and split into 4a and 4b. 40 papers were classified as 4b, taking the consensus level from 98% to 97%. It is unclear whether 40 were found in the sample of 1,000, or 5 and scaled up to 40 for the 7,970 neutral abstracts. If the former is true, then 319 should have been reclassified. The headline endorsement rate would be 91% in that case. The 4th rating may have been an ad
hoc addition, but no survey protocol was published.
The headline conclusion is not reproducible. . Data for the 4th rating are not available.

Well that's some news.... 91% (LOL) it would be news if Tol was right... But he was not as he did some basic math errors and he was caught. (like I said he got his pee pee whacked) You man Tol after fixing the math errors came up with the same results... 97% gee who would have thought....
You can read the whole thing here.


Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97% global warming consensus




A new paper by GWPF's Richard Tol accidentally confirms the results of last year's 97% global warming consensus study“There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”

These are the words of economist and Global Warming Policy Foundationadvisor Richard Tol in a new paper published in Energy Policy. Despite accepting that the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is real and correct, Tol has nevertheless spent the past year trying to critique the study my colleagues and I published last year, finding a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed climate literature.

The crux of Tol's paper is that he would have conducted a survey of the climate literature in a slightly different way than our approach. He's certainly welcome to do just that – as soon as we published our paper, we also launched a webpageto make it as easy as possible for anyone to read the same scientific abstracts that we looked at and test the consensus for themselves.
Tol chose instead to look for faults in our study's methods in what he described as a "destructive" approach. Ultimately he concluded that because those who were categorizing the abstracts based on their position on the cause of global warming were human, our ratings were imperfect (this is certainly true), and that accounting for these imperfections brings the consensus value down to about 91%. That's where Tol made his big mistake.
Tol's big mistake.......

rest of article is here....
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...accidentally-confirm-global-warming-consensus





OBD due keep up with the news and the debate as it tiresome correcting your constant mistakes and misinformation. Second source your teams "bubble thoughts" before posting, as your looking bad......

Ever get the feeling that you are not going to win this?
Perhaps it's because you don't have science on your side.
Without the science you have no case.

Your post is little more then "hand waving" as if that counts for science..... Your side have evidence to back up your claim? Then produce it with a paper that tell us the 97% is incorrect. Till then all the "hand waving" is irrelevant. Much like your arguments.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LOL. You are funny.
Gullible is the term used for your side i am told.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
$10 billion UN-linked climate change fund wants immunity from prosecution

climateinternal78787.jpg
The Green Climate Fund, (GCF) a United Nations-affiliated piggy-bank intended to finance climate change projects around the world, is determined to win sweeping U.N.-style immunities from prosecutions for its global operations--even though the U.S., its biggest contributor, opposes the idea, and the U.N. itself says its own diplomatic immunities can’t cover the outfit.

The immunities issue could well spark even deeper opposition from Republican lawmakers in next year’s Congress to the Obama Administration’s aggressive climate change policies--which include a recent $3 billion pledge to the Fund.

“We would definitely be opposed to any extension of immunity to the Fund,” said a senior aide to Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who will chair the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works starting in January.

“What do they need protection from?” he asked. “In essence, they are doing business development projects. If you look at the way millions of people do transactions across national borders, they do it without immunity and very successfully.”

Apparently undeterred, fund officials told Fox News that they are now trying to hammer out “bilateral agreement templates” that could be laboriously negotiated with each country where it operates—a total that could eventually reach the great majority of the U.N.’s 193 members.

The Fund has already negotiated one agreement of immunity—with its new host country, South Korea, as a condition of moving its headquarters there last year.

CLICK HERE FOR THE SOUTH KOREA AGREEMENT

If the GCF succeeds in its broader negotiations, not only billions but eventually trillions of dollars in climate funding activities could fall outside the scope of criminal and civilian legal actions, as well as outside examination, as the Fund, which currently holds $10 billion in funding and pledges, expands its ambitions.

The shield would cover all documentation as well as the words and actions of officials and consultants involved in the activity documentation—even after they move on to other jobs. As a tasty side-benefit, the “privileges” attached to such “privileges and immunities,” as they are known in diplomatic parlance, mean that employees get their salaries tax-free.

Just why the GCF needs the sweeping protections is not exactly clear. In response to questions from Fox News, Michel Smitall, a Fund spokesman, provided mostly opaque answers.

“Privileges and immunities are intended to facilitate GCF activities in countries in which it operates and the GCF’s ability to use contributions by donor countries in an effective and efficient manner that serves the objectives agreed by its member countries,” he said.

Smitall added that it is “premature” to give out any information on the specific scope of privileges and immunities, because these “would be negotiated bilaterally with countries in which the GCF operates.”

The immunities, however, “are expected to cover a range of issues,” he said, “such as protecting GCF staff members acting in their official capacity and facilitating their official travel and protecting taxpayer dollars contributed by donor countries.”

The GCF, he added, “functions in a transparent manner, with strong oversight by its [24-member] Board. To the extent that there are civil or criminal actions against the GCF, we would work closely with the authorities of the relevant country.”

Smitall’s statements, of reassurance however, did not cover the prospect that in many developing countries, those same national authorities may well be direct or indirect partners in the activities the Fund is financing, or the fact that national authorities in many of the developing countries where the Fund hopes to operate are spectacularly corrupt.

The assurances apparently have also failed to win over Obama Administration officials (the U.S. is a GCF Board member). "The Green Climate Fund is an independent institution wiht an independent Board and Secretariat, which is by design separate from the United Nations," a U.S. Treasury official told Fox News.

Treasury officials did not answer, however, other emailed Fox News questions about whether other countries supported the U.S. position, and about U.S. views on the GCF's new country-by-country approach.

The British government, which has recently given $1.2 billion to the GCF through its Department for International Development (DFID), is staying close-mouthed about the immunities issue. “The GCF Board will be deliberating the issue of privileges and immunities in 2015 and UK will engage in those discussions,” a DFID spokeswoman told Fox News.

The GFC’s determined pursuit of immunity highlights the broad zone of legal ambiguity that is proliferating in the era of international action against climate change, led by organizations operating under the aegis of the United Nations without being explicitly part of it.

The GFC, for example, is a by-product of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC, which is the legal home of the Kyoto Protocol and the forum for hammering out a successor treaty that is now expected to be unveiled at a climate summit in Paris late next year.

Despite its name, the UNFCCCC is also not an organ of the U.N. that automatically gets and passes on the same kind of sweeping immunities as direct U.N. subsidiaries, or that are granted by international agreement to major development banks. That position was underlined in an opinion from the U.N. Office of Legal Affairs in 2006.

The GCF, in turn, is a child of the UNFCCC—via a 2011 decision of UNFCCC parties--with its standing just as fuzzy—a situation that it has been trying to change since at least 2012.

The effort to get that status shifted into a higher gear in November 2013, when the Fund’s Board sought another legal opinion from the U.N.’s Office of Legal Affairs on whether it could obtain a “link” between its own status and that of the U.N., along “hybrid” lines derived from U.N. subsidiary organs.

The answer came back to the GCF board at a meeting this May—No.

CLICK HERE FOR THE BOARD’S QUERY AND REPLY

The Board apparently did not want to accept that answer. A single sentence in a Board report at an October, 20144 meeting in Barbados notes that “a mission to

New York in August also helped prepare the UN Climate Summit and explore how the Fund may acquire privileges and immunities,” presumably with the same people who already had replied in the negative.

(Questioned by Fox News about the August mission, GCF spokesman Smitall replied more circumspectly that “GCF Secretariat staff, including its general counsel, met with U.N. staff to engage in technical discussions to better understand the scope of U.N. immunities and the possibilities of U.N. linkage, given that the GCF is not a U.N. body.”)

While the rewards of immunities are still something that GCF does not wish to discuss in detail, the potential risks they pose—to other people—have been raised by critics who looked at disasters where U.N. immunities played an important role—such as Haiti.

U.N. peacekeepers from Nepal are almost universally believed to have introduced cholera in October 2010 to the earthquake shattered nation that had not seen the disease in a century. About 700,000 cases and 8, 560 deaths have been reported since then.

After denying U.N. involvement in the epidemic for many months, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon invoked U.N. diplomatic immunities in rejecting lawsuits brought against the world organization by relatives of the victims. Lawsuits in U.S. courts are still ongoing, but the State Department has supported the U.N.’s blanket immunity status.

“As we are seeing in the wake of the Haiti cholera epidemic, once we have agreed on privileges and immunities to any mission, they offer an extreme amount of protection to activities that could affect populations badly,” notes Brett Schaefer, an expert on the U.N. at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. ‘’They should be awarded only in circumstances where they are truly necessary and critical to the mission or fulfillment of the mandate of the organization.”

“That is not the case,” he added, “with the GCF"—a position that the Fund is working as hard as it can to overcome.

George Russell is editor-at-large of Fox News and can be found on Twitter: @GeorgeRussell or on Facebook.com/George Russell
 
Photograph by: Robin Rowland , THE CANADIAN PRESS
PORT EDWARD — A member of the Tsimshian First Nation has signed an agreement with Pacific NorthWest LNG around a proposed multibillion-dollar liquefied natural gas facility near Prince Rupert.

Most of the agreement’s details between the the Metlakatla governing council and the Petronas-led company are being kept confidential.

However, a statement says the deal covers the First Nation’s environmental concerns and comes after “intensive negotiation” between the two parties and the province.

Under the agreement, the Metlakatla is being paid for signing on and for providing a letter of support around the project.

Chief Harold Leighton said his nation has weighed the pros and cons of the proposed terminal at Lelu Island and feels this is the best deal possible.

Earlier this month, Petronas said it was delaying its LNG terminal in northwestern B.C., because conditions weren’t right to proceed with the $36-billion project.

The Nisga’a Nation recently signed a separate agreement around the proposed LNG terminal that includes removing more than 63 hectares of land from the Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park.
 
LOL. You are funny.
Gullible is the term used for your side i am told.

Your post is little more then "hand waving" as if that counts for science..... Your side have evidence to back up your claim? Then produce it with a paper that tell us the 97% is incorrect. Till then all the "hand waving" is irrelevant. Much like your arguments.
 
George Russell is editor-at-large of Fox News and can be found as a Twit: @GeorgeRussell or on Facebook.com/George Russell

Well there you go you have been told.... by Fox News....LOL
Gullible is the term used for your side i am told.

Here is a video on that 97% thing you have been told is not so..... Critical thinking that some have lost but young people have not. Clear sign that change is coming....

Published on Jun 5, 2014
Enough! That's Peter Doran's opinion on the "debate" about a scientific consensus on climate change. There clearly is one -- a strong one. So why do the public and the politicians think otherwise? Why the big disconnect between what the vast majority of scientists know to be fact, and what the public thinks. Dr. Doran blames the way media reports on science, and he blames a few of the loud voices on the right. He presents an idea to change a lot of the minds of people who deny the scientific consensus on climate change which will hopefully lead politicians to action. Peter Doran is a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He has published over 80 articles in the academic literature about the polar regions, lakes, ecology and climate change.
[_lXStVYFX48]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lXStVYFX48
 
Global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from Oct. 1 through Nov. 11, as recorded by NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2. Carbon dioxide concentrations are highest above northern Australia, southern Africa and eastern Brazil. Preliminary analysis of the African data shows the high levels there are largely driven by the burning of savannas and forests. Elevated carbon dioxide can also be seen above industrialized Northern Hemisphere regions in China, Europe and South America and Africa. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

The first global maps of atmospheric carbon dioxide from NASA’s new Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 mission demonstrate its performance and promise, showing elevated carbon dioxide concentrations across the Southern Hemisphere from springtime biomass burning.

At a media briefing today at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco, scientists from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California; Colorado State University (CSU), Fort Collins; and the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, presented the maps of carbon dioxide and a related phenomenon known as solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence and discussed their potential implications.

A global map covering Oct. 1 through Nov. 17 shows elevated carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere above northern Australia, southern Africa and eastern Brazil.

“Preliminary analysis shows these signals are largely driven by the seasonal burning of savannas and forests,” said OCO-2 Deputy Project Scientist Annmarie Eldering, of JPL. The team is comparing these measurements with data from other satellites to clarify how much of the observed concentration is likely due to biomass burning.

The time period covered by the new maps is spring in the Southern Hemisphere, when agricultural fires and land clearing are widespread. The impact of these activities on global carbon dioxide has not been well quantified. As OCO-2 acquires more data, Eldering said, its Southern Hemisphere measurements could lead to an improved understanding of the relative importance in these regions of photosynthesis in tropical plants, which removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and biomass burning, which releases carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

The early OCO-2 data hint at some potential surprises to come. “The agreement between OCO-2 and models based on existing carbon dioxide data is remarkably good, but there are some interesting differences,” said Christopher O’Dell, an assistant professor at CSU and member of OCO-2’s science team. “Some of the differences may be due to systematic errors in our measurements, and we are currently in the process of nailing these down. But some of the differences are likely due to gaps in our current knowledge of carbon sources in certain regions — gaps that OCO-2 will help fill in.”

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has no distinguishing features to show what its source was. Elevated carbon dioxide over a region could have a natural cause — for example, a drought that reduces plant growth — or a human cause. At today’s briefing, JPL scientist Christian Frankenberg introduced a map using a new type of data analysis from OCO-2 that can help scientists distinguish the gas’s natural sources.

Through photosynthesis, plants remove carbon dioxide from the air and use sunlight to synthesize the carbon into food. Plants end up re-emitting about one percent of the sunlight at longer wavelengths. Using one of OCO-2’s three spectrometer instruments, scientists can measure the re-emitted light, known as solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF). This measurement complements OCO-2’s carbon dioxide data with information on when and where plants are drawing carbon from the atmosphere.

“Where OCO-2 really excels is the sheer amount of data being collected within a day, about one million measurements across a narrow swath,” Frankenberg said. “For fluorescence, this enables us, for the first time, to look at features on the five- to 10-kilometer scale on a daily basis.” SIF can be measured even through moderately thick clouds, so it will be especially useful in understanding regions like the Amazon where cloud cover thwarts most spaceborne observations.

The changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide that OCO-2 seeks to measure are so small that the mission must take unusual precautions to ensure the instrument is free of errors. For that reason, the spacecraft was designed so that it can make an extra maneuver. In addition to gathering a straight line of data like a lawnmower swath, the instrument can point at a single target on the ground for a total of seven minutes as it passes overhead. That requires the spacecraft to turn sideways and make a half cartwheel to keep the target in its sights.

The targets OCO-2 uses are stations in the Total Carbon Column Observing Network (TCCON), a collaborative effort of multiple international institutions. TCCON has been collecting carbon dioxide data for about five years, and its measurements are fully calibrated and extremely accurate. At the same time that OCO-2 targets a TCCON site, a ground-based instrument at the site makes the same measurement. The extent to which the two measurements agree indicates how well calibrated the OCO-2 sensors are.

Additional maps released today showed the results of these targeting maneuvers over two TCCON sites in California and one in Australia. “Early results are very promising,” said Paul Wennberg, a professor at Caltech and head of the TCCON network. “Over the next few months, the team will refine the OCO-2 data, and we anticipate that these comparisons will continue to improve.”

To learn more about OCO-2, visit:

http://oco2.jpl.nasa.gov/
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    66 KB · Views: 37
This kinda sums up the whole argument from OBD and his online blog heros:
 

Attachments

  • securedownload.jpg
    securedownload.jpg
    93.1 KB · Views: 32
Projected increases in atmospheric rivers projections suggest a wetter future, despite forces that brought the recent California drought.

SAN FRANCISCO, CA, DECEMBER 16, 2014 — After three years of drought, California has lost a lot of water, as scientists here revealed on Tuesday. Eleven trillion gallons isthe estimate. But today climate researchers warned that other forces will be at work in coming decades that could make the West Coast a lot wetter.
Climate models show that atmospheric rivers — narrow bands of storm tracks that can bring anywhere from five to 20 Mississippis-worth of water streaming over the West Coast from the Pacific — will increase in number, said Mike Dettinger, a climate researcher with the U.S. Geological Survey and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif.

1214_latest72hrs.gif



An atmospheric river: a natural phenomenon and a veritable firehose of moisture channeled from the tropics to the U.S. West Coast and other regions worldwide. Source: University of Wisconsin
One climate model shows that the number of days that these powerful storms will make landfall with the West Coast will increase from 25 to 65 by the year 2100 as emissions continue to climb. Another model that assumes that emissions will level off at mid-century projects the number of atmospheric river storms to increase from 25 to about 40.
A few other statistics that Dettinger presented today:

  • 92-percent of the West Coast’s heaviest three-day rain events are fed by atmospheric rivers (ARs).
  • 30 percent to 50 percent of Sierra Nevada rain, snow and stream flow are from ARs.
  • When they don’t show up, their absence impacts water supplies drastically: they account for 85 percent of multi-year precipitation variance over Northern California.
  • 40 percent of droughts in Northern California are ended by ARs.
  • ARs don’t just impact California; they’ve caused major storms in Arizona, Utah and other western states.
Dettinger showed a map of the continental U.S. dotted with places with the largest 3-day totals of precipitation ever measured — 300 millimeters of water in three days. The Gulf Coast and Southeast, where hurricanes make landfall, and the West Coast are the only places in the U.S. that see this kind of rainfall.
So with their benefits, atmospheric river storms also ravage the West Coast with torrential rains, widespread flooding and costly property damage. Since 1950, 87 percent of all declared floods on Russian River in California have been associated with atmospheric rivers, Dettinger said. Eighty percent of levee breaks in the state’s Central Valley have been associated with the storms (the rest being caused by snowmelt).
What’s the driving force behind the increasing number of atmospheric rivers as the century progresses? As global temperatures continue to rise, more moisture will evaporate and the atmosphere will become more saturated with water, Dettinger said. A lot of it will come back down in these storms.
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...eric-rivers-of-rain-predicted-for-west-coast/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141216212049.htm

Herd mentality: Are we programmed to make bad decisions?
Date: December 16, 2014
Source: University of Exeter
Summary: A natural desire to be part of the 'in crowd' could damage our ability to make the right decisions, a new study has shown. Research has shown that individuals have evolved to be overly influenced by their neighbors, rather than rely on their own instinct. As a result, groups become less responsive to changes in their natural environment.
 
Stuff your stockings with B.C. coal

VICTORIA - No matter whether you light the menorah, trim the tree or setup the Festivus Pole, your holiday activities likely have a connection to a lump of coal mined right here in British Columbia.
From the planes, trains and automobiles that are used to transport holiday gifts, to the stores where those gifts are sold - they all require steel. That steel is made using metallurgical coal.
Upwards of 90% of the coal produced in British Columbia is metallurgical coal. In 2013, B.C. exported more than 28 million tonnes of metallurgical coal.
Planning to drive to the mall over the holidays? There are approximately three million cars in B.C. and it takes roughly 630 kilograms of metallurgical coal to produce a single vehicle.
Nothing says Canadian winter like lacing up the ice skates for a game of hockey. The steel blades that make breakaway goals possible start out as metallurgical coal.
Coal production is a mainstay of the province’s economy, generating billions of dollars in annual revenue and supporting thousands of well-paying jobs. Coal production currently represents over half of the total mineral production revenues in the province.
Quote:

Minister of Energy and Mines Bill Bennett -

“Most people don’t think of coal when they go shopping for gifts, but the fact is without the coal that is mined right here in British Columbia, we wouldn’t have access to things like smartphones, cars or even shopping malls.
British Columbians can take pride in knowing that no matter the product or where it was made, it probably wouldn’t exist without B.C. coal.”
http://www.newsroom.gov.bc.ca/2014/12/stuff-your-stockings-with-bc-coal.html

You just can't make up stuff like this.....
How stupid are these folks? Plenty it seems...
Using the headline "
Stuff your stockings with B.C. coal" as their press release... Brian dead...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow was surprised that Heartland would even post this from their conference. Mind you they seem to have held it back for 2 years.
Something to do with the markets....
This one is for you OBD
[A8W58ZfgbJw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8W58ZfgbJw

Published on Jul 25, 2013

The Heartland Institute hosted its Sixth International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, DC on June 30 -- July 1, 2011. The theme of the conference, "Restoring the Scientific Method," acknowledged the fact that claims of scientific certainty and predictions of climate catastrophes are based on "post-normal science," which substitutes claims of consensus for the scientific method. This choice has had terrible consequences for science and society.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top