Article: China Plans a Market for Carbon Permits "China plans to introduce its national market for carbon permit trading in 2016, a government official said on Sunday, adding that Beijing is close to completing rules for what will be the world’s biggest emissions trading program."
"The nation accounts for nearly 30 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and it plans to use the carbon market to slow its rapid growth in climate-changing emissions."
"China has pledged to reduce the amount of carbon it emits per unit of its gross domestic product to 40 to 45 percent below its 2005 levels by 2020."
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 09-12-2014).]
Study: Rapid sea-level rise along the Antarctic margins in response to increased glacial discharge "The Antarctic shelf seas are a climatically and ecologically important region, and are at present receiving increasing amounts of freshwater from the melting of the Antarctic Ice Sheet and its fringing ice shelves1, 2, primarily around the Antarctic Peninsula and the Amudsen Sea."
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 09-12-2014).]
"We created a scenario based on the past 10 years' loss experience to test the potential impact of climate change; the results indicate that, under this scenario, reinsurers might be underestimating their exposure to catastrophe losses by an average of about 50%."
"Under this scenario, key ratings metrics which we use to assess reinsurers' capital adequacy and catastrophe exposure are materially affected."
Some major insurance companies already hear the sirens.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 09-13-2014).]
August 2014 was the hottest August on record, according to data released Monday by NASA. The news comes as the United Nations prepares to host a climate conference aimed at setting the stage for an international deal next year in Paris to reduce Earth-warming emissions.
The data of last month’s temperatures falls into a longer trend of unseasonably hot years ...
NASA’s Global Land-Ocean Temperature index, which has provided data on global temperatures since 1881, indicated that this past August was 0.7 degrees Celsius hotter than the average August temperature between 1951 and 1980.
Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which publishes the index, said the August temperatures vary only a fraction from other hot Augusts, but that the long-term trend of a warming world is there.
"You can see there is a clear trend to more heat waves in the middle latitudes and there is a trend to more intense precipitation," said Schmidt.
Some of the most dramatic warming occurred in Antarctica. NASA found temperatures 7 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 20th century average. And 2014 as a whole could be the fourth hottest on record, the publication Climate Progress reported. . . .
Originally posted by fierobear: OK, now the TRUTH, as opposed to NASA GISS erroneous claims...
Those are all hoax websites.
What does the actual evidence say?
NOAA agrees with NASA:
"The combined average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces for August 2014 was record high for the month, at 0.75°C (1.35°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F), topping the previous record set in 1998."
"The combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for the June–August period was also record high for this period, at 0.71°C (1.28°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F), beating the previous record set in 1998." Source.
The Japanese Meteorological Agency agrees with NASA and NOAA:
"The monthly anomaly of the global average surface temperature in August 2014 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.32°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.66°C above the 20th century average), and was the warmest since 1891. On a longer time scale, global average surface temperatures have risen at a rate of about 0.64°C per century." Source.
"The seasonal anomaly of the global average surface temperature in Summer (June to August) 2014 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.31°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.65°C above the 20th century average), and was the warmest since 1891. On a longer time scale, global average surface temperatures have risen at a rate of about 0.66°C per century." Source.
Hmm, different scientists, different funding, different methods.
All arriving at the same conclusion.
Earth is still warming.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 09-18-2014).]
"100+ world leaders gathered in NYC. 2808 solidarity events in 166 countries. The largest climate march in history." Source.
Such a historic evident! I wonder what role the "liberal media" played...
Media Matters: Sunday News Shows Ignore Historic Climate March "Sunday news shows on NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and Fox failed to cover the People's Climate March, a massive protest against climate change being held September 21 in New York City in conjunction with events in more than 150 countries worldwide."
Oh...
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Green is the new red
Capitalism in crosshairs as Socialism promoted at opening event of People’s Climate March
‘F*** the Police’: Communists, Radicals Spotted Throughout Climate March in New York City Demanding ‘Revolution, Nothing Less’
In standard denier fashion, you have completely ignored the facts. Or more correct, "unable to give a damn" you're utterly wrong and intentionally lying to people.
Divestment Bombshell from Rockefeller Foundation. As fossil fuels continue their trend of becoming risky and stranded assets, this will be more common.
"In recent years, 180 institutions — including philanthropies, religious organizations, pension funds and local governments — as well as hundreds of wealthy individual investors have pledged to sell assets tied to fossil fuel companies from their portfolios and to invest in cleaner alternatives. In all, the groups have pledged to divest assets worth more than $50 billion from portfolios, and the individuals more than $1 billion, according to Arabella Advisors, a firm that consults with philanthropists and investors to use their resources to achieve social goals."
Tens of thousands of environmental protestors paraded through New York City on Sunday, in a “people’s climate march” designed to lobby world leaders arriving for the latest United Nations climate summit. The march did succeed in messing up traffic, but President Obama won’t achieve much more when he speaks Tuesday at this latest pit stop on the global warming grand prix. Regardless of what the West does, poorer countries that are reluctant to sign agreements that impede economic progress hold the dominant carbon hand. --The Wall Street Journal, 21 September 2014
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: Know how the People's Climate March was historic? All the usual suspects are freaking out and trying to downplay it.
"Historic" according to your biased sources. Yeah, riiight.
Remember, YOU dismiss sources you think are baised. You did it in the same post you accuse me of doing it. LOL
quote
Actually, you set the standard in the first post in this thread:
Originally posted by fierobear: I will stick mostly to scientific papers and sources
Until the politicians and scientists made its political. But you obviously aren't smart enough to understand such distinctions. So keep talking to yourself.
And that hasn't stopped you from positing political cartoons and the like. Once again, you can't live up to your own standard, so you have no room to criticize.
quote
Yet all the 'scientific evidence' you post comes from hoax websites.Yet all the 'scientific evidence' you post comes from hoax websites.
You don't get to decide that. But just keep repeating it to yourself, I'm sure it'll makes it much easier to continue believing your failing theory.
http://capitalresearch.org/...and-harming-america/ Grants The Rockefeller Foundation provides grants to far-left and not-so-left groups. Organizations that promote the expansion of welfare and increased reliance on government for the necessities of life receive significant funding. For example, left-wing think tanks that receive grants for their work to snuff out the spirit of self-reliance include the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ($7,465,332 since 2001), Policy Link ($8,760,000 since 2000), Center for American Progress ($3,828,400 since 2009), Urban Institute ($11,937,520 since 2000), and New America Foundation ($11,313,000 since 2003).
Hard-left groups receiving grants include the Tides Foundation and the related Tides Center ($3,130,245 since 2003 “to promote green transportation as a means of economic growth” and for “felon disenfranchisement” projects), U.S. Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG) ($950,000 in 2009), the SEIU (Service Employees International Union) Education and Support Fund ($550,000 since 2001), and the race-baiting ACORN-like Advancement Project ($2,150,000 since 2001, earmarked for projects described as advancing “racial justice” and “racial justice innovation,” whatever those terms mean).
(For more information on the Tides network see Green Watch, August 2012; Foundation Watch, October 2011 and October 2010. For more information on SEIU see Labor Watch, October 2012, and Organization Trends, July 2011. For more information on the Advancement Project, see Organization Trends, May 2012.)
Feel-good groups that take in Rockefeller Foundation money include the William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation ($600,000 since 2005), Local Initiatives Support Corp. ($5,445,834 since 2000), World Health Organization ($12,462,147 since 2000), and the United Nations Foundation ($1,150,000 since 2009).
“Smart Growth” and Agenda 21 The Rockefeller Foundation is especially interested in so-called “smart growth” and has handsomely rewarded groups promoting the social engineering schemes associated with the concept. It has given Living Cities $16,684,900 since 2002. The group describes its mission as “harness[ing] the collective power of philanthropy and financial institutions to improve the lives of low-income people and the cities where they live.” This is a whitewash, of course. Smart growth is all about creating incentives for people to move from sprawling, less densely populated areas to big cities, which are increasingly powerful political strongholds of the Left.
Rockefeller has given Smart Growth America $9,167,500 since 2008. The money was earmarked “to identify new policy proposals to reduce urban sprawl,” and “to encourage transportation and land use policy reform at the state level.” It has handed over $14,670,949 to the Brookings Institution, one of the oldest Washington, D.C. think tanks, for programs to promote smart growth, public transit, and “walkable” cities.
The foundation even gave $2.5 million in 2010 to the smart growth-promoting U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, a federal government agency already awash in taxpayer dollars (i.e. a $43.7 billion budget in fiscal 2010).
Like radical philanthropist George Soros, the Rockefeller Foundation enthusiastically backs Agenda 21, a United Nations-sponsored plan that aims to expand government control over virtually every aspect of rural Americans’ lives.
What is Agenda 21? It was embraced by President Obama when he signed Executive Order 13575 to create the White House Rural Council. The council will advise Obama on how to give the federal government greater control over “food, fiber, and energy.” Agenda 21 was also embraced by President Clinton, who signed Executive Order 12858, which established a Presidential Council on “Sustainable Development.”
Some liberals are trying to implement Agenda 21 at the state level. For example, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley’s Plan Maryland would implement the principles of Agenda 21 at the state level. Plan Maryland would transfer land use/zoning powers from local governments to the state government in Annapolis. The scheme is essentially a protection racket for big cities and the Democratic political machines that run them. Agenda 21 takes deadly aim at private property rights. The United Nations, dominated by left-wing governments, views private land ownership as evil. According to the U.N.:
“Land … cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole.”
Agenda 21 is not about saving the environment. It is about massively increasing government power. Agenda 21 is being pushed by a U.N.-inspired group called “International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) – Local Governments for Sustainability,” a 501(c)(3) nonprofit profiled in the November 2008 Organization Trends.
Agenda 21’s original goal was to build political coalitions of cities and to enact local laws regulating carbon emissions. But now Agenda 21 is more ambitious. It wants to foist total government control over land use on local governments in the United States. Agenda 21 would impose restrictions on development and farming in the name of “rural sustainable development.” Agenda 21 would also reward governments for pushing economically disastrous “green energy” programs, such as subsidies and other special breaks for solar and wind power.
The funny thing is that here in the land of Communism the Chinese have embraced Capitalism with gusto. They make us look like amateurs.
Movements can and do get hijacked though. Did you know the Tienanmen Square protest started as an anti-corruption protest (against government officials who take bribes)? It was taken over by louder voices shouting for democracy.
Don't ever believe the climate change debate can only be about science.
Don't ever believe the climate change debate can only be about science.
I think we agree. Whether the global climate is warming ... or not ... is almost purely a scientific question. The bigger issue of what we should do about it ... or not ... is almost entirely a question of political, social, and economic policy. The second question is far more important, and I think it's the discussion we should be having now, rather than later.
I do really object to the politicization of science by outsiders, though, in this case and others.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 09-23-2014).]
Take about a bunch of confirmation bias hoopla over nothing.
Its an abstract of a PRESENTATION, not a paper as you claim. It was NEVER peer reviewed. May be if you took a half a second to read it rather than the typical deniers ability to only understand headlines rather than content, you would have caught this. You call it a paper out the gate then immediately label the link as a presentation. Are you seriously this unable to cognitively process information?
-The end 'conclusion' of the presentation; my paraphrasing: "Homogenization is necessary. . . however, we don't like the results so we shouldn't do it." It doesn't even deny AGW, its just states the anticipated temperature increase should be between the raw data and the homogenized data. Only in your mind could one doctor say "You have cancer, you have 6 months to live", another say "You have cancer, you have 12 months to live", and you conclude "I have about 9 months to live! I don't have cancer!"
-This is the same scientist who reviews his own papers for his journal. . . I would have aced every test/paper in college if I were the one that got to grade it. This should show that the author has questionable ethics/motives.
-Talk about getting something that supports your position and touting it as the end all/be all of science. Where was your acceptance of the myriad of actual papers that refute this? Why, out of the thousands of other scientific papers that go against your position, is THIS, an abstract of a presentation, is the one to be taken seriously? Where is your skepticism? All of the other papers are wrong, but THIS is right?
-I bet dollars and donuts, that of the stations they picked to reduce the value of overall warming, were cherry picked due to their susceptibility to homogenization.
A new study released Monday found that warming temperatures in Pacific Ocean waters off the coast of North America over the past century closely followed natural changes in the wind, not increases in greenhouse gases related to global warming.
Originally posted by fierobear: "Historic" according to your biased sources. Yeah, riiight.
By every realistic measure there were several hundred thousand people at the climate march. The fact you deny that is no surprise.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Remember, YOU dismiss sources you think are baised.
First off, you're misrepresenting what I post on purpose. Nearly everything you post comes from hoax websites. Nearly everything I post comes from legitimate scientific sources with global recognition as a scientific authority.
You're forced to use hoax websites because there are ZERO scientific institutions that reject anthropogenic global warming.
Second, I dismiss your biased sources because they have been proven, several times over in this very thread, that they fail to be objective, they are biased, and clearly lying to people. You ignore these facts and continue to use them. If you didn't use them, you wouldn't have any sources at all!
Third, it's amazing how you're completely silent about the mountains of scientific evidence I post, but as soon as there's a Huff Po link you're very talkative.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Until the politicians and scientists made its political.
Please. You refuse to use scientific sources because there are ZERO that reject anthropogenic global warming. All you've got is hoax websites on par with all the other conspiracy theories.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: But you obviously aren't smart enough to understand such distinctions. So keep talking to yourself.
Originally posted by fierobear: And that hasn't stopped you from positing political cartoons and the like. Once again, you can't live up to your own standard, so you have no room to criticize.
It's your standard, fierobear. Your standard. You said in the first post you will stick to mostly scientific sources. You've completely abandoned that practice because there's zero scientific institutions in the world that reject anthropogenic global warming.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: You don't get to decide that.
I haven't decided anything. Reality has. They are hoax websites.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: But just keep repeating it to yourself, I'm sure it'll makes it much easier to continue believing your failing theory.
Solid case of projection right here.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 09-24-2014).]
Scotland in other news, they are the home of tidal energy. Here's an interesting report on their progress.
Report: Marine Renewables - Bringing Economic Benefits To Scotland "In August 2014, Scottish Renewables carried out the first survey of marine energy project and technology developers with interests in Scotland to assess how the industry benefits the Scottish economy. This research shows that to date, the companies surveyed have invested more than £200 million into the Scottish economy, with more than £30 million coming in 2013/14. Importantly, the research also showed that on average 62% of the companies’ supply chain is Scottish."
