Shared publicly  - 
 
I'm sorry. We could have stopped catastrophic climate change...We didn't.

Today, world governments are sitting down in Doha, Qatar to discuss climate change. The conference, known as COP 18 is another chance for governments to be held to account for commitments made to cut emissions, move to a low carbon economy and help countries adapt to the impacts of climate change happening now. → goo.gl/U0guu

History of Climate Change Negotiations in 83 secgoo.gl/PnCHW

Original poster by Arc Communications → goo.gl/iAYxl & goo.gl/rmho2
65
24
Владимир Харитонов's profile photoFynder Enlil's profile photoDonald Farmer's profile photoPreston McDonald's profile photo
105 comments
 
We'd be even sorrier if they continue to pursue it :)
 
It snowed here today. I vote for global warming.
 
Take it from me. I live by the beach on a 100sq mile rock. Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is as likely as the sky falling on our heads :)
 
This is a very tricky subject - as people mostly tend to stay on extreme ends of the subject.
Important step in solving any problem is to accept we have a problem - humans have greatly accelerated climate change and better work on changing their living behavior to stop that and then think of compensating for the natural changes (one which happens whether humans exist or not)
Majority of the people in that conference are not even accepting this - so the outcome will be nothing but just blame-games.
More important than these conferences is, why are people expecting leaders to do something about climate change when it is every human being who are responsible and should work on it ? Our personal responsibility and accountability is not what we should be looking at our leaders for.
In my opinion, money spent on these noneffective meeting should be used for educating people to be responsible towards nature.
 
Because that isn't how people work. It can't be, because from the perspective of any individual agent the rational decision is to ignore the environmental impact of that agent's consumption. It's an example of an externality. The only effective method I've heard of to deal with such things is government intervention.
 
7.1 billion people and growing......all have their needs,dailly things,there could be a 3th world war,but there could also be an Chinese some kind of program or some natural disasters...also works great,some air and waterborn illnesses great.....designed illnesses great,on some areas of the globe they have spare some nasty shit that can kill millions great,but hey,there are also a lot of other inventions that shows and are proven to get some or a lot of that climatechange away,one way  or they other,the population has to change some behaviour,is it not before a disaster,then they have to learn the consequences after it,or and use other technics to go on/further,so more and more standardisations of normal behaviour global,because come on all citys have sewers and toilets and that are mostly also standard norms and so on
 
Put it this way.

We do have alternative energy options.

We don't have alternative planet options.

Wreck this one, and we're screwed.
 
Let's initiate a kickstarter to create one or more monuments to the people who were in a powerful position, but did nothing, or who obstructed progress.  Let's order it by family name so that any future generations know who in their past created the mess that they are now dealing with.  I would see these as polished black stone with chiseled names.
 
Powerfull stuff! I hope the politicians themselves get to see this.
 
+Marcel Kuil Planet Earth is enormous. So much so, that had we to use Hong Kong's population density ratio, and relative infrastructure, and apply this to the world population of 7 billion, would be able to live entirely on a landmass the size of Bolivia :)
 
Global warming is about replacing Big Oil for Big Green. The names may change but the people remain the same. Enslaved you were and enslaved you shall remain.
 
+Adrian Azzopardi Planet Earth is small,in fact it stops growing at a fast speed in time and after that or is shrinking or takes what it needs to grow cq make a new start,it's how u look at it,and under special kind of conditions,that one says it's big and another says it's small and i do not think it's gonna happenthat the whole world is gonna settle on australia and let the rest of the globe became one big national conservation wildlifepark....second....all on a landmass at the size of Bolivia...where do we get the fresh water from  3% it is and all the rest of the "needs"...never forget natures principals,and laws.....
 
+Adrian Azzopardi Your comparison is invalid and irrelevant because: Yes, we can all fit in a tiny area, but we can't survive there. Look at all the space for agriculture we use...not including energy production and jobs. Your example is extremely dishonest and misleading. Better luck next time.
 
+Marcel Kuil I'm not suggesting that a hyper metropolis should be built to house the world's population. Just wanted you to understand the planet's dimensions. Furthermore, since population is not growing exponentially, the problem we shall be facing at the turn of this century, is one of a shrinking global population.
 
+brendon powell There's currently enough food to feed a population of 28 billion. Malthusians have been screaming "the end is nigh" since the latter part of the 1700s. Seems it's you and your ilk who need some luck.
 
+Adrian Azzopardi Fluctuations my friend,fluctuations and needs and with that the paradox that starts over and over century after century....
 
+Adrian Azzopardi Such grossly oversimplified statistics...you have no idea what you're saying. Two can play this game: Enough food for 28 billion, and yet millions of people starve around the world... The problems are not as simple as you wish to make them sound... And so, you resort to name calling and an attack on my character when your arguments are found to be lacking in substance. Bravo, I commend your dedication to infinite ignorance.
 
It's a close race between denial and ingenuity.
 
standards..protocols...new born out of the old ones to serve a growing population,makes us losing some parts of that old conscious.......
 
+Adrian Azzopardi You are quite the contrarian aren't you? Why would "those in power" want that switch? Green tech requires a lot more R&D before it will make any money. Isn't it better to be "enslaved" under big green then to be enslaved under big oil? Isn't green tech about decentralization? Whats stopping me from putting up my own solar panels and selling my power back to the man? Although we won't run out of oil for decades to come, it's not such a bad thing to be thinking about alternatives already. On a more serious note; how do you explain rising temperatures, melting icecaps, receding glaciers if the planet isn't warming? What about the predictions made by climate models? Where would all that CO2 be going or why wouldn't it have any effect? ...  
 
one last thing...u know how apes,monkeys survived and evolved into us very creative "smart" curious humans after the last big drop from outher space that wiped land and air dinosaurs from out of extinction?   By living and living from in a dense forest where the dinosaurs couldn't invade on it's predative way for hunger.,those same high density forests protected them at that big bada boom shockwave..... so and now we are at the point to came to rest in a natural surrounding.........it's that u know it!
 
If they are not willing to listen to reason, you've got to change your approach. :)
 
+Koen De Paus With world economies in decline and going bankrupt as we speak, wouldn't you think a contrarian view is in place? For how much longer are you prepared to believe the official storyline? Those in power will choose to switch, in any direction, so long as there is a buck to be made and so long as they know that a significant part of the electorate is dumb enough to vote them into office. Politicians make millions irrespective of a project's success or failure. Think 'Cap and Trade'. Being enslaved under either system is still enslavement. An electrical grid powered by hydrocarbons or renewables, doesn't decentralise the system. I am not against green tech but I'm dead against government funded green tech. So long as the solar panels you are installing are not funded through tax dollars, then I have absolutely no objections. There are two theories to the origins of crude oil. The first, a byproduct of organic life (biogenic), the second, an amalgamation of minerals, continually being produced inside the Earths crust, by a process which involves considerable amounts of heat and pressure (abiogenic). If the latter proves to be right, we'll never run out of oil. How can you be so certain that climate temperature is rising, icecaps are melting, glaciers receding? It's all hearsay. By the same token, I might as well believe in God, just because the high priest says so. The question you should have asked me is to actually prove that global warming is a hoax, without the use 3rd party data sources. On highly important issues, I'm not prepared to believe anyone but myself. According to 3rd party sources, climate models aren't even able to predict past catastrophes, let alone future ones. But as I said, that's 3rd party info. CO2 does effect temperature ever so slightly. So consider it a bonus to life on Earth. Furthermore, there is also 3rd party evidence which claims that CO2 is greening the desert and increasing biomass. To compensate for hearsay, I shall endeavor to produce sources which are pro-alarmist.
 
Why do so many people deny climate change?  Fellow humans.. don't bring this upon yourself. It is such a ridiculous idea that NASA, which was responsible for putting the first human on the moon would try to fool you on climate science. What is NASA ever going to get by doing that? http://climate.nasa.gov/
 
+Shivam Patel Cosmologists at NASA also claim that 96% of the universe can't be seen or detected, and yet it's there. Still think you should be taking their word for it when it comes to complex issues like global warming? :)
 
"For how much longer are you prepared to believe the official storyline" As opposed to what? That global warming isn't happening? I don't believe in conspiracies and since I am not a climate scientist myself I trust the scientific consensus that emerges out of the community of experts. I do however have access to google maps and youtube which clearly show how icecaps are melting and glaciers are retreating. Weather data indicates that globally temperature is on the rise or are you saying that the scientific community has been tampering with this data since the early days? Why are politicians so reluctant to act on global warming if, according to you, they can sell their position for millions? I am in favor of subsidized green tech because big oil has cornered the market. Greentech will be able to stand on its own legs in a decade or so. Crude Oil does not originate from biomass? How do you come up with this stuff? ;) Even if that would be the case, it would still be much healthier to use green tech than to burn fossil fuels.

I dare you, I double dare you! Prove to me that global warming is a hoax! :)

"On highly important issues, I'm not prepared to believe anyone but myself." - It's impossible for an individual to know everything. You can not be an expert on genetic manipulation, nuclear science, climate and artificial intelligence at the same time. If you are smart enough you might be able to master the details of one of those. The human race is a collective intelligence and the opinion of someone who knows what they are talking about matters more than the uninformed opinion of Joe Sixpack.
 
+Adrian Azzopardi That ~96% claim is also absolutely true.
Most of the universe is dark matter and Dark energy, and its not scientist you should trust but the science. Science works on a consensus of experiments.. not the consensus of the experimenters. 
You should pick up any astrophysics textbook anywhere in the world and you'll find that claim to be true. 
 
+Travis Hayes In 1798, Thomas Malthus was making the very same predictions about population. Here we are, 214 years later.

Consider this; In 1900, world average life expectancy stood at 37 years. Most people wouldn't have had the opportunity to see their grand children. Today its 68 years. The population then was 1.6 billion, today its 7.0 billion. That's a 4.38 fold increase and a 8 fold increase in total human life years. Truly remarkable, wouldn't you say?. This achievement would not have been possible without the industrial revolution and hence the burning of hydrocarbons. I have no intention of supporting a belief which will send us back to a pre-industrial era.
 
In case you hadn't noticed, the rovers that are exploring Mars are doing so on nuclear and solar power. Oil is the fuel source that dates back to pre-industrial era. Solar and Nuclear will power the future.
 
+Adrian Azzopardi " I have no intention of supporting a belief which will send us back to a pre-industrial era."... Well' again its not a belief.It is not in the bible. Its fucking science, and honestly, it doesn't matter what you believe.  
 
And wind and tides and Bio feul and the 2nd coming of Jesus (hopefully lol). 
 
+Shivam Patel What ever happened to statistical significance? :)  Can you even fathom losing 96% of the formerly known universe. It's laughable. Question is; why aren't you even aware that there other theories concerning the cosmos, and the missing energy and matter? Anything which has the word, dark or black before it, means they don't haven't a clue. I'm sorry, but "Complex" is not a satisfactory answer, considering that the taxpayers pumps billions of dollars into such programs. Furthermore, the onus isn't on me to prove global warming. So consider it a stroke of luck, that I make the effort. Maybe what's needed is a good dose of humility.
 
 "Anything which has the word, dark or black before it, means they don't haven't a clue." - +Adrian Azzopardi  where did black come from, I was only mentioning dark matter stuff.. Wait, so you dont believe in "black" holes? that was predicted from Einstien's work of general relativity. (Now its getting personal lol) 
 
+Koen De Paus …as opposed to your own scientific observations! Whoever gave you the impression that your opinion was invalid and that you needed to be a climate scientists to tell if global warming is true or false? I’m sure you haven’t lived in a bubble all your life? You and I could go back and forth all day, presenting documentation and video “evidence”, produced by others. But what puzzles me is as to why you chose to omit the views of the ‘nay sayers’, without even examining their claims. I too once believed in the alarmist version of the story. But then decide to thoroughly examine the skeptical point of view and found that it fell in line with my own observations. To someone like myself, who lives on a tiny island, right by the sea, it is imperative that I know, with a degree of certainty, that a rise in sea level isn’t going to endanger my life or property. So, what I can suggest to you, it to take a trip to the seashore and talk to the locals. If you find that there has been no noticeable sea level rise for the past 40 years, you can rest assured that the polar icecaps and glaciers are very much in tact. Sea level tells you everything you need to know about global temperature. But besides this, there’s also an ulterior motive for those paddling the hoax. They intend on giving us an immensely inferior product at a much higher price. If renewable technologies lived up to their claims, they’d have been snapped up in a heart beat, by the private sector and government wouldn’t have needed to be involved.
 
Politicians sway with public sentiment. Their primary goal is to win an election. If they realise the tide is shifting towards a more skeptical view, they’ll ditch it.
 
I didn’t say crude originates from biomass. I said that there is another theory which claims that petroleum is abiogenic, i.e not organic. It’s manufactured naturally under extremely high heat and pressure, from a combination of minerals found within the Earth’s crust. The earliest strata of ancient organic remains exists at around 17,000 feet below the surface and yet oil companies are extracting petroleum at over twice that depth. Also, how would one explain the oceans of methane (also a hydrocarbon) discovered on one of Saturn’s moons, Titan? Evidently, oil companies with the collaboration of government, are deliberately keeping us in the dark, so as to keep the price of oil artificially inflated.
 
+Shivam Patel Yes, you got me. Damn! :) Black hole: at its heart is a singularity, which is so minute, it has no dimensions. It is infinitely small and infinitely dense. Really? Which comic books are you reading :) Even Albert Einstein had his reservations about the General Theory of Relativity. Why would it make sense to warp physical observations to fit the mathematical equations?  Question: In abstract math, what do you get when you divide any number by zero?
 
I had typed up an immensely long and informative rebuttal of everything you just said but google just ate it. Snarl! Don't really feel like typing all that again so in short;

You seem to have alternative theories to every well established theory out there.

You are asking me to side with conservative think tanks and a handful of people who don't know what they are talking about. Every scientific organization and the majority of all climate scientists will tell you that global warming is real.

You've got it backwards. Politicians do not support global warming because they follow their voters and not science. This climate conference will be evidence of that.

Sea level has been rising, several island nations are already in the process of relocating because their home is being swallowed by the sea.

Abiotic petrol is an obsolete 16th century hypothesis

You give governments too much credit, a conspiracy on such a global scale is simply not possible
 
+Koen De Paus Sorry to hear about the rebuttal. I know how it feels because it's happened to me quite a few time.

Those theories are well established with you and others like you, only because you choose to believe they are.

I'm not asking you to side with anyone but yourself. I cannot force you see the truth. That's entirely up to you.

That's roughly what I said. That politicians are more interested in winning elections and therefore pander to the voters.

Coral atolls are living island which grow and shrink at the rate of sea level. They are often referred to as "float" islands. The people from Kiribati are looking to relocate because they have destroyed their own islands with excessive pollution and overdevelopment of the building sector.

You still haven't explained how there's methane on Titan?

World governments have failed to agree. So, there is not such conspiracy.
 
+Adrian Azzopardi There are 32 billon acres of ice free land in the world. Divide that by 28 billion and you get slightly over 1 acre per person. Subtract the desert, the forest, scrub land and your growing plot is about the size of a modest house. Try researching the web before spouting fanciful unsupported data.
 
+Mike Weatherby Maybe you should take your own advice?

Keep in mind that Al Gore claims that Roger Revelle is one of his mentors :)

"Food is abundant. Since 1948, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, annual world food production has outpaced the increase in population by about 1 percent. Today, per capita production and per-acre yields are at all-time highs. The late Roger Revelle former director of the Harvard Center for Population Studies estimated that Africa, Asia and Latin America alone, simply by using water more efficiently, could feed 35 billion to 40 billion people - seven to eight times the current world population - and that assumes no change in technology.The former director of the Agricultural Economic Institute at Oxford University, Colin Clark, has estimated that if the world's farmers were to use the best methods of farming available, an American diet could be provided for 35.1 billion people."

"If a Japanese-style diet were provided, this number would be trebled."

http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2010/02/feeding-brain-food-for-thought.html

In the mad rush of having to answer everyone on this post and elsewhere, I made the error of writing current food production instead of current food technology. In your infinite wisdom, you should have realised that producing 4 times the food required, does not make economic sense.
 
I dare you, I double dare you! Prove to me that global warming is a hoax! :)

Population decrease, food supplies, ... or Methane on titan is not proof that global warming isn't happening. I am not going to pretend I know about its origin but if you would just check wikipedia you can read that everyone agrees that although most of the earthly methane is biotic in origin that it can also be produced through abiotic means. It's a very simple molecule compared to long hydrocarbon chains like petrol. Obviously most of the petrol comes from biomass but even if earthly petrol would have been produced through some abiotic means then the process is much too slow to keep up with the rate at which we burn it and it would still be much healthier to go green than to keep on burning it.

" Evidently, oil companies with the collaboration of government, are deliberately keeping us in the dark, so as to keep the price of oil artificially inflated." 
Do you have any idea how many scientists are active in the field of fuel synthesis? Do you have any idea what it would take to keep such information covered up? They would need to kill people every day. It's simply not possible.

The white house dissing 31 000 scientists just goes to show that politics follows the voters and the money instead of the science. Being a skeptic is great but don't you think it's odd that you support crazy theories that get no support from actual scientists that study this stuff?
 
Call me selfish but really who likes standing shoulder to shoulder gawking at pockets of pasteurized zoo-like ecosystems.   Those that have hiked, photographed, fished, gathered mushrooms and hunted in the wild will know the thrill of being there without competing with thousands others vying for your campsite.    Economist, politicians the church and developers and the media are ecstatic over this bunny begetting proliferation of humans but at some point when we are all standing knee deep in people to get our ration of cabbage, climate change and natural forces will whittle down our overpowering numbers.    I guess billion really likes crowded but its not for me and not healthy for planet diversity.     So don those condoms now it is by far the cheapest method to reduce your carbon footprint.  Give wildlife some breathing room.
 
+Koen De Paus I've already proved it to you in my previous reply :) I walk down to the beach from my home and observe that there's no noticeable increase in sea level. Let alone a looming catastrophe. Note that I also go spearfishing often during the Summer season. I know the sea like the back of my hand.

Were you aware that the UN's Global Warming policy was first conceived in Malta, by Maltese international lawyers in 1988?

The negotiation of the Convention and its rulebook (pp 7)
"....Recognising the needs of policy makers for authoritative and up-to-date scientific information, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 (see “Institutions” below). That same year, following a proposal by Malta, the United Nations General Assembly took up the issue of climate change for the first time and adopted resolution 43/53 on the “Protection of global climate for present and future generations”. In 1990, the IPCC issued its First Assessment Report, confirming that human-induced climate change was indeed a threat and calling for a global treaty to address the problem. ..."
http://unfccc.int/resource/process/guideprocess-p.pdf

I didn't mention population, methane or Titan to disprove global warming. Those were entirely different issues. Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot be trusted on important issues for the simple reason that pages can be edited and altered by anyone. I'm sure you've heard. The reason why I don't believe the official narrative is because the price of oil has roughly remained a constant for the past 30 years. There's no better indicator to define shortages. Another thing which suggests that petroleum is of mineral origin is that oil companies are drilling at depths of almost 40 thousand feet. Well below the earliest organic layer at 17,000 feet. So how did it get there, since upward pressure increases with depth? You may think that green energy is healthier but I could argue that it isn't, if I approach the issue differently. Sure, renewable energy does not produce toxins, but global warming has nothing to do with toxins, and all to do with the production of man made CO2. Now, to demonstrate that renewable energy is less healthy than electricity generated through conventional means, I could also factor in cost and indeterminacy into the equation. The chances of someone freezing to death is far greater with renewable energy. Furthermore, it impoverishes everyone. Had there to been a global switch to renewables, poverty related deaths, in the 3rd world, would increase substantially.

To this day, scientists have been unable to determine the origins of petroleum through lab tests. It's not much of a secret if I and many others believe it to be abiotic.

If they were crazy theories, I wouldn't have been here challenging all of you. I do not subscribe to one theory or the another, but am simply playing devil's advocate by demonstrating that there are other theories which need considering.
 
Whow +Mike Weatherby haha! Selfish wouldn't start to describe you. So I suppose you're all for the UN's Sustainable Development program, right?
 
+Mike Weatherby Do not despair. Malta's the 7th most densely populated nation with 1,282 per square km (3,322/sq mi)

WOMEN, CHILDREN and POPULATION
World population growth racing ahead, UN reports

Justin Gillis and Celia Dugger, NY Times – 5 May 2011

"The world's population, long expected to stabilise just above 9 billion in the middle of the century, will instead keep growing and may even hit 10.1 billion by 2100, a United Nations report said."
http://www.unaa.org.au/685.pdf

Meaning, that once population plateaus at 10.1 billion, from then on it's down hill. A major concern characterising the 22nd century, shall be shrinking population.

Also, a Dutch book written some 35 years ago, entitle “De Groene Aarde” (“The Green Earth”), estimated that the Earth's terrain could produce enough food to support a population of 130 billion. The study was based on Dutch city trends of a 1,000 people/sq.km.
 
Really? I guess I must have missed that proof. Personal experience is not scientific evidence. What does your 1988 UN panel on climate change have anything to do with global warming being a hoax? Science was already aware of global warming well before 1988. I am sorry but I can not take your word over that of experts or my own experience. Both temperature and sea level are rising. This has been measured by satellites to an immense degree of accuracy. Most glaciers are retreating and the northern ice cap is melting at a dramatic rate. These are all facts and you have to be blind to ignore them. Why do you think country like Russia, Iceland and the US are beginning to make claims about northern territories such as greenland? At this point I think it's safe to say that the only people who question global warming are either willfully ignorant because they have something to gain from the status quo or of the conspiracy theorist variety like yourself.

You are not as smart as you think you are. Climate experts, people who devoted their entire lives to climate are in agreement that global warming is happening. If you can convince them, I'll listen but you are going to have to do a hell of a lot better than "where I live sea level doesn't seem to be rising". Sea level has risen only a few millimeter a year, how would you even notice that? 
 
Recognizing and defusing the social pressures underlying science denial are key in convincing people that it is even worth considering scientific ideas that seem contrary to those of their social identity. When science denial becomes entwined with group identity, the risk of social ostracism is probably costlier than scientific error.
Science denial: a guide for scientists (strangely available at the moment) http://goo.gl/6zSGZ
 
+Koen De Paus Excuse me! But it's you who's the conspiracy theorist. Global warming is akin to believing in UFOs and little green men. It really is that hilarious :)

My personal observations are my own proof. I do not require any scientist to inform me on the condition of Earth's climate. I know for a fact that their "evidence" is false. Since sea level is not rising, then the polar icecaps and glaciers cannot be melting, all together. Suggesting that global mean temperature is stable. I can accept that there might be some natural melting in the Arctic, but then, Antarctica must be growing. There's no two ways about it. Same goes for the many glaciers around the world. As I informed earlier, my disbelief is shared by 31,000 scientists and 9,000PhDs, together with a 1,100 peer-reviewed studies showing global warming to be a hoax. You, on the other hand, should be seeking you own proof before deciding to back the alarmists. My advice to you is to never ever accept 3rd party hearsay at face value, wherever it may come from. And if you think I haven't challenged these so called scientists, you'd be mistaken.

Consider that little piece of information, about Malta and global warming policy, as trivia. I'm quite sure you were unaware of that little detail. But it also means that if we can make it, we can also break it ;)

I'm just an ordinary person longing to be convinced ;)
 
Data from the Grand Harbour tide gauge shows that the average sea-level trend over a 20-year period is rising at an annual rate of about 5mm, which is higher than the global average sea-level rise. Whereas there are temporary falls in sea-level, these are related to cyclic astronomical controls and local environmental factors over a short time-scale, which do not represent the overall trend in sea-level change. http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100113/letters/sea-level-is-up-and-climate-change-is-real.289533
 
+Kevin Clift Where did I ever give you the impression that Maltese politicians were any different? I hope not :)

An excellent article, by the way. Read it slowly and carefully. It's a vitriolic attack by a global warming alarmist, Peter Gatt, of Durham University, England, on Malta's Climate Change Committee .
 
Why don't you just phone the people at Grand harbour tide guage and ask them for the data and bypass these people you don't trust.
 
Although tiny, Malta's nonetheless a giant hydrometer. Do you really think that I'm unable to tell if the island's in danger of a catastrophic sea level rise? For heaven's sake, I practically live on the sea.
 
You are not making any sense, how am I the conspiracy theorist? You are the one that thinks scientists, governments and big oil are in bed together. You can pull numbers out of thin air all day long but that doesn't make them true. Those scientists you mention are not climatologists and know as much about climate change as you and me. The fact is that people who know aren't even debating whether global warming is happening. They are debating what its effects will be. Sea level is rising, temperature is rising, glaciers are retreating, ...  You can close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and go lalalala, but it's not going to make the facts go away. 

Personally I don't think you've traveled the world, ordered satellite time or drilled for ice cores to get your evidence first hand either but I know that I don't have the time, money or skills to perform such experiments so I trust the community of people who do. I prolly know more about climate than you but unlike you I am willing to admit I don't know enough.
 
A simple phone call to confirm your observations won't take much effort.
 
That is a secondary matter +Koen De Paus. I've come to that conclusion only because I'm certain global warming is a hoax. But there are also many other, non-related, examples to suggest that government is corrupt. If you can't even see that, I'm wasting my time.

Well then, maybe we should make a list all the countries we've visited so far :)

Anyway, it's bedtime for me. 2:30 am CET
 
+Kevin Clift I can do that in a heartbeat. What will it prove?

If these paragraphs from the article you linked me to, doesn't say it all, then I don't know what does?

"Dr Deidun's mistaken assertion was also repeated by Ing. Marco Cremona who happens to be on Malta's climate change committee which is supposed to prepare this country for the impacts of climate change.

Mr Cremona concluded that the Prime Minister of Malta was "misinformed" when he told the Copenhagen summit that sea-level was rising. It seems that it is Malta's climate change committee which is misinformed, and not surprisingly; unlike its British counterpart, the local committee on climate change does not have a single Earth scientist on board.
 
Okay let us know what they say.
 
You should read that article again. Deidun claimed that sea level was not rising so of course he was mistaken. Mr Cremona copied this incorrect statement so yes Malta's climate change committee which does not have a single earth scientist on its board was also mistaken.

I don't believe in such black and white view of politics and that has no bearing on this discussion. 
 
+Koen De Paus So, according to you ....and of course, Mr Gatt, you need to be an Earth scientist to read sea level gauges. Let me ask you; when driving, do you constantly require someone next you, to know how fast the car's moving? :) Mr Cremona is a hydrologist. Understanding sea level is part and parcel of his job.
 
+Kevin Clift Malta's is part of the EU. The EU has an aggressive program to slash anthropogenic CO2 output. Mr Cremona and Dr Deidun informed Malta's prime minister that sea level was down, and yet, the prime minister went to the Copenhagen summit and reported that sea-level was rising. The Maltese government is planning to install wind turbines off Malta's seashore, at an enormous cost to the taxpayer.

Now, what do you suppose they're going to tell me when I call the Grand Harbour tide gauge? And what do you think would happen to the wind farm project, had they to inform everyone who calls, that sea level has been fluctuating normally for as long as records have been kept? Do you think that the minister, responsible for the environment, will be a happy man? Do you think those working at Grand Harbour tide gauge, have a pretty good chance of losing their job?
 
I never said that, it's just rather absurd that a climate committee doesn't employ any earth scientists. There you go again bringing in more conspiracy theory bs to back up your case. Mr Cremona did not do his job, he copied an inaccurate statement from Mr Deidun. If he was any good at his job he should have known better. 

You can keep guessing as to what they'll tell you or you could just give them a call and find out. 
 
+Koen De Paus
* When dealing with sea level, who is the more specialised, and therefore more qualified for the job, an all-encompassing Earth scientist or a marine biologists, researcher and hydrologist?
* Why are you prepared to believe what someone in England said about qualified personnel in Malta?
* If later on today, the scientific community unanimously agreed that they were wrong all along, and that the moon was in fact made of cheese, would you believe them?
* Do you believe politics is corrupt? Big difference between a conspiracy theory and conspiracy fact.
* Did you believe (or would you have believed) scientists in 1970s, when they announced that Earth was heading for a Big Freeze?
* With respect to global warming, my suggestion is to do absolutely nothing about it. You, on the other hand, want to take action at the expense of our lives, because the boogeyman's coming to town. Who of us is the conspiracy theorist?
 
You are throwing out one strawman after the next. All I said is that it's bizarre that a so called climate committee doesn't employ earth scientists.

I don't pay too much attention to individual scientists. It's the science itself that matters. Does that mean science always gets it right? No. If the community of experts changes its mind, so will I. That is why I said you are wasting your time convincing me, it's the people who know about climate that you really need to convince.

To be honest I think I would. There is no way such a scientific consensus would emerge without hard evidence. Are you suggesting that I should build my own spaceship to get my facts first hand? 

You are thinking in black and white again. Some politicians can be bought others have integrity.

I can hardly find anything about "the big freeze" on google. Can you find me evidence that says that this ideaever had more than a handful of supporters?

Investing in future technologies like solar and fusion is smart regardless of your opinion on global warming.
 
+Koen De Paus Comparing science qualifications isn't a strawman. Because an earth scientist is a "jack of all trades, master of none", that's why :)

Galileo Galilei, and many other individuals like him, struggled against the conventional wisdom of their time and turned out to be right. Science doesn't work by consensus because genius comes in single portions. Already told you. I'm not trying to convince but to change the way you rationalise. You need to become more trusting of your own scientific observations rather than leaving such matters of importance in the hands of others. Keep in mind that global warming has already cost us dearly, and so, your support to end this looting, is actually required. For every dollar wasted on this hocus pocus, is a dollar forsaken on worthwhile projects. Opportunity cost, my friend. To discover the truth, all one needs do is to take a trip to the seaside and ask around, instead of having to build your very own USS Enterprise :)

Honest politicians are few and far between. They are the anomaly in an ocean of corruption and never make it anywhere near the top.

As Feature on Time Magazine http://thetruthpeddler.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/in-the-1970s-the-scare-was-a-coming-ice-age/

It is not my job to determine if investing in renewable technologies is smart. That should be left entirely up to the free-market and private investment.
 
I already told you it's impossible to be an expert in everything. If you equate science with asking people who live near the sea about their opinion than you misunderstand what science is about. 

Science doesn't work by consensus but society does. A genius like Galileo had to convince the scientific community before the information could reach the general public. Asking around or experiencing a cold summer doesn't mean a thing. Experiments and hard data is what does the trick and for that you need education, time and money.  

I have no problems with those "wasted" dollars, in fact I encourage government to "waste" more. 

Corrupt politicians; do you have any numbers to back that up or is that just a feeling?

The only link you have is some obscure blog? When I try to read the article the link redirects me to a 404 from a climate change denial site. That's like proving god exists by using the bible ;)

Yeah let's leave things up to the market, that obviously works like a charm. ;)

I am getting flashbacks to discussions about evolution and creationism so I think we better call it a day. We've both made our points clear. I'll change my mind when the experts do and you... you probably never will.
 
+Koen De Paus When choosing someone to run a department which shall be responsible for gauging sea-level, it is only natural the expert's given the job. But to claim that a layperson cannot determine whether sea-level is rising, is another matter altogether. Coastal rock features and small sandy beaches, together with old man-made structures, such as concrete breakwaters, steel ladders, stone steps et al, all contribute, making it considerably simple to determine if a catastrophe's unfolding. Not once, have I ever seen two photos, side by side, split by a 50 year time lapse, showing any one of these abundant coastal features, partially submerged. I mean absolutely, ZILCH. When living on a tiny island, one would have to be a certified cretin to believe in global warming. If sea-level hasn't risen, then global temperature is at a mean constant. Period. And shame on you for choosing to believe those who've never even communicated with :)

Another misconception. Neither science nor society works on consensus. Society is an abstract manifestation made up of many individuals, each with their own different preferences and beliefs. And what did Galileo use to prove Copernicus' theory right and his opponents wrong? A telescope and his own two eyes. He certainly didn't parrot 3rd party hearsay.

Sadly, I too have come to the same conclusion and have already advised some here on G+. If having to building an economic system afresh, entails destroying the old one completely, then so be it. If government's offering "free" money, then everyone should indulge to his/her heart's content. To defeat socialism, one must think and behave like a socialist. Better having to bring the economy down in one felled swoop, suffering the consequences for a year or two, than having to endure protracted torture.

You want numbers? How about $16 trillion in debt for starters. Just in case you haven't yet realise, the country's bankrupt.

Would you like me to forward you a collection of links from alarmist web sites, showing the benefits of anthropogenic CO2 and the like?

Though I'm agnostic, I hope that you do realise evolution and the existence of a God, have nothing to do with each other.

You'll change you mind only when you start kissing your own ass for a change :)
 
What about tides? There are daily, seasonal and annual changes of sea level and you are telling me you can see through the chaos and detect an average rise of millimeters with your eyeballs? Why do you trust your opinion over hard scientific data such as satellite measurements? Time and time again you mix politics with science... They really don't get along very well. The information is out there, you just have to check where it comes from. Big oil, conservative think tanks or random bloggers with a climate change denial site are not objective. You should check the evidence published by the community of experts, actual climatologists and respected scientific organizations. I am sorry to leave you hanging but I have better purpose for my energy than to continue this discussion. 

Peace! :)
 
Is this you (or perhaps a relative) +Adrian Azzopardi
via LinkedIn:
Senior lecturer at LITAV to multinational companies engaged in oil exploration such as SAIPEM and ENI. Lectures cover Public International Law, Trade Law, Carriage of Goods by Sea, ISM Code and Ship management, Pollution, Towage, Salvage, Pilotage, Marine Insurance and STCW Regulations.
 
+Kevin Clift Nice try but no :) I think I'd have been far too busy to be writing here. Could you please send me the LinkedIn address?
 
That is no reason for complacency.
 
I am such a sucker for debate. ><

The register isn't really a respected news source. It's a tabloid and it's widely known that they grasp every opportunity to deny climate change.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/oct/11/2

If you take a look at their source, the actual scientific paper, it opens with the following sentence; The melting of polar ice sheets is a major contributor to global sea-level rise. What was that about 3rd party hearsay? ;)

Here's an article for the layperson from the horse's mouth; http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S35/40/38C46/index.xml?section=topstories
 
The island of Manhattan to nearly a depth of 12,000 feet (3,600 metres) of ice lost/year in aggregate ...
The Princeton researchers found that Greenland lost roughly 200 billion tons of ice each year during the seven-year period studied, which falls within the range reported by other studies. The amount of ice lost annually could stack up on all of Manhattan to nearly 12,000 feet, or more than eight times taller than the Empire State Building, Harig said.
 
+Koen De Paus Mean sea-level is an average measurement. I tend to go spearfishing during the summertime, when the waters are relatively calm. This is the only way I'm able to determine it's stablity. But if we're just talking about millimetric increases, how does that warrant such investment, at such dire economic times? If I cannot trust myself, who else can I trust? Being a small island, Malta has far more to gain, financially, than bigger nations do, from global warming being a reality. You accuse me of mixing politics with science and yet you yourself believe it just as much as I do. Conservative think tanks is a dead giveaway :) For as long as the taxpayer continues to afford such programs, then global warming is above all, a political issue. Do you really think climate scientists would have had a job if it weren't for government funding? Unlike yourself, I have bothered to examine both sides of the debate and the skeptical argument falls well within the parameters of my personal observations. I simply refuse to allowing one side or the others to do my thinking. The deciding factor is my own rationale.
 
+Kevin Clift There's a major difference between weather and climate. One's local while the other, global. Have you realised that both locations are in the northern hemisphere? Wouldn't the southern half need examining? Here are a some articles on Antarctica. Keep in mind that they're pro-global warming advocates

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/22/forget-the-melting-arctic_n_1906554.html
http://news.discovery.com/earth/antarctic-sea-ice-growth.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/08/100816-global-warming-antarctica-sea-ice-paradox-science-environment/

Reason why I cannot notice a sea-level rise here in Malta.
 
You're the one who brought the subject up.
 
A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance: goo.gl/uyQPS
==> Melting of polar ice sheets has added 11mm to global sea levels over the past two decades...
 
I can live with 55mm/century. However, what proportions are attributable to anthropogenic CO2 and natural causes? What's certain is that there has been a considerable decline in the rate of ascension since the end of the ice age, when global sea-level was rising by an average of 1,000mm/century from 19,000 to 6,000 years ago. An 18 fold deceleration from today's figures.
http://noc.ac.uk/news/global-sea-level-rise-end-last-ice-age
 
You might have heard this but.. as the ice caps melt, the heating increases exponentially as there's more water to absorb heat.

That's what scares people, that after a critical point that rate might just explode. the average sea-level rise per century is not relevant. that's because sea levels rise and decline all the time. The issue with global warming is the unforeseen violent weather patterns it brings. 

Also today there's more people living on the coasts than ever. (what the heck there's 7 billion of us now, no wonder more people on beaches than ever) .. In fact have u been to dubai.. they literally live on man made islands there now. And u might want to visit the Maldives ASAP.   
 
But as per the pro-global warming articles I posted above, Antarctica seems to be growing.

The tipping point was said to have happened already, back in the latter half of 2010. Weather patterns have neither become more frequent or violent. They seem to be, only because of our global connectivity and coverage.

Homo Sapiens Sapiens is a very adaptable specie. Should sea-level rise, the specie will migrate further inland. Been doing this for millennia. A global population of 7 billion is small in comparison to the size of the planet. Also, the greater part of humanity currently resides in a temperature range of around 110 deg.C.

If a catastrophe was about to unfold, why would the rich and famous purchase prime real estate on newly built, artificial islands which lie at only a few meters above sea-level?

As Explained earlier, the Maldives, like other atolls, float on the surface of the ocean. "This was first noted by Charles Darwin who realized that coral atolls essentially “float” on the surface of the sea. When the sea rises, the atoll rises with it. They are not solid, like a rock island (Malta). They are a pile of sand and rubble. There is always material added and material being lost. Atolls exist in a delicate balance between new sand and coral rubble being added from the reef, and atoll sand and rubble being eroded by wind and wave back into the sea or into the lagoon. As sea level rises, the balance tips in favor of sand and rubble being added to the atoll. The result is that the atoll rises with the sea level." http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/floating-islands/
 
we've seen the hottest decade in known history mate. Im not gonna argue forever. And homo sepia is an adaptable specie? really? Im not worried about the specias as a whole? people can move inwards if they want..If miami beach goes down in less than a hundred years, that would suck.
 
Leave it to me. Should I notice a sudden rise, I'll let you know ASAP ;)
 
Tribe of Kogi. Lightful Alaye conducted Research and found out the following. Tribe of Kogi in South America, one of the Last Keepers of Ancient Knowledge on Earth. Their Message - Stop Gas production, Oil, Minerals... It is Earth "Blood". Without them Earth will dry up and will die. In mountains where there lives Plemya Kogi, the top surfaces of mountains started drying, it waits all Earth. Pernicious processes already went when there will be the last point after which already everything will be irreversible, it isn't known, but I think that it isn't so far. STOP GAS PRODUCTION, OIL, MINERALS... The MANKIND went NOT ON THAT WAY, it is NECESSARY to INVITE SPIRITUAL ALIENS TO EARTH, THEY WILL HELP.... SPIRITUAL ALIENS - LIGHTFUL ALAYE'S PLEYaDEANTsY,SOPLEMENNIKI! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Add a comment...