76 Trillion in wealth redistribution (Paris Conclave) results in....... NO BENEFIT GLOBALLY.

[Billy_Bob]

76 Trillion in wealth redistribution (Paris Conclave) results in....... NO BENEFIT GLOBALLY.

"
A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate promises made ahead of the Paris climate summit.

Governments have publicly outlined their post-2020 climate commitments in the build-up to the December’s meeting. These promises are known as “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDCs).

Dr. Lomborg’s research reveals:

• The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
• Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.
• US climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.031°C (0.057°F) by 2100.
• EU climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.053°C (0.096°F) by 2100.
• China climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
• The rest of the world’s climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.036°C (0.064°F) by 2100.

"



0.05 deg C is smaller than the normal error bars of our current measuring devices by a factor of 4.... yet these fools want to destroy and lower the standard of living and the US free market...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Not to mention that there is no scientific proof of their alleged boogie man in CO2..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Even the most adhered to and strict compliance will result in a decrease we cant even measure.

Bernie Maddoff would be proud of this scam..

 

[Old Rocks]

Global Warming Policy Foundation - SourceWatch

Funding not transparent; just 1.6% comes from memberships
The Global Warming Policy Foundation does not reveal where its funding comes from.[6] In their first years accounts they say "the soil we till is highly controversial, and anyone who puts their head above the parapet has to be prepared to endure a degree of public vilification. For that reason we offer all our donors the protection of anonymity".[7] The accounts show the extent to which the secretive Foundation is funded by anonymous donors, compared with income from membership fees. Its total income for the period up to 31 July 2010 was £503,302, of which only £8,168 (or 1.6%) came from membership contributions. The foundation charges a minimum annual membership fee of £100.[8]

In 2012, the Guardian exposed Lawson's links to coal-fired power companies in Europe.[9]

"900 papers" claim; subsequent analysis shows Exxon ties, Energy and Environment papers
In mid-April 2011, the GWPF provided "900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm".[19] The blog Carbon Brief analyzed them, and found that -

9 of the top 10 authors had ties to ExxonMobil
"prominent scientists featured on the list didn't agree that their work supported skepticism about anthropogenic global warming - and had unsuccessfully asked for their work to be removed from similar lists in the past", and
the most-cited journal was Energy and Environment, a journal with a very low impact factor whose editors are AGW deniers.[20]

Since when did that rag achieve the status of a peer reviewed journal? It never has been such, and never will be. More lies from Silly Billy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Global Warming Policy Foundation - SourceWatch

Funding not transparent; just 1.6% comes from memberships
The Global Warming Policy Foundation does not reveal where its funding comes from.[6] In their first years accounts they say "the soil we till is highly controversial, and anyone who puts their head above the parapet has to be prepared to endure a degree of public vilification. For that reason we offer all our donors the protection of anonymity".[7] The accounts show the extent to which the secretive Foundation is funded by anonymous donors, compared with income from membership fees. Its total income for the period up to 31 July 2010 was £503,302, of which only £8,168 (or 1.6%) came from membership contributions. The foundation charges a minimum annual membership fee of £100.[8]

In 2012, the Guardian exposed Lawson's links to coal-fired power companies in Europe.[9]

"900 papers" claim; subsequent analysis shows Exxon ties, Energy and Environment papers
In mid-April 2011, the GWPF provided "900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm".[19] The blog Carbon Brief analyzed them, and found that -

9 of the top 10 authors had ties to ExxonMobil
"prominent scientists featured on the list didn't agree that their work supported skepticism about anthropogenic global warming - and had unsuccessfully asked for their work to be removed from similar lists in the past", and
the most-cited journal was Energy and Environment, a journal with a very low impact factor whose editors are AGW deniers.[20]

Since when did that rag achieve the status of a peer reviewed journal? It never has been such, and never will be. More lies from Silly Billy.

Rather sad that you attack the messenger and not the facts..

Do you have any facts ABOUT THE SCIENCE that disprove my assertions or are you just going to attack the person who did that science?

The jump to funding can be thrown right back in your face.. Your so called scientists are heavily funded by left wing governments and groups... Yet I attack their science and their conclusions from that faulty pseudoscience.

 

[tyroneweaver]

I'm really interested in what the prez has to say about methane gas
and relation to farm animals

 

[Old Rocks]

Introduction - Summary

In 1896 a Swedish scientist published a new idea. As humanity burned fossil fuels such as coal, which added carbon dioxide gas to the Earth's atmosphere, we would raise the planet's average temperature. This "greenhouse effect" was only one of many speculations about climate change, however, and not the most plausible. Scientists found technical reasons to argue that our emissions could not change the climate. Indeed most thought it was obvious that puny humanity could never affect the vast climate cycles, which were governed by a benign "balance of nature." In any case major change seemed impossible except over tens of thousands of years.

In the 1930s, people realized that the United States and North Atlantic region had warmed significantly during the previous half-century. Scientists supposed this was just a phase of some mild natural cycle, with unknown causes. Only one lone voice, the amateur G.S. Callendar, insisted that greenhouse warming was on the way. Whatever the cause of warming, everyone thought that if it happened to continue for the next few centuries, so much the better.

In the 1950s, Callendar's claims provoked a few scientists to look into the question with improved techniques and calculations. What made that possible was a sharp increase of government funding, especially from military agencies with Cold War concerns about the weather and the seas. The new studies showed that, contrary to earlier crude estimates, carbon dioxide could indeed build up in the atmosphere and should bring warming. Painstaking measurements drove home the point in 1960 by showing that the level of the gas was in fact rising, year by year.

Of course I do. From the a site of the largest Scientific Society on this planet, the American Institute of Physics. And I can present and have presented vidoes on the present day effects of the GHGs we are putting into our atmosphere from the Scientific Society that has more climate scientists in it than any other, the American Geophysical Union.

American Geophysical Union (AGU)

 

[Billy_Bob]

Introduction - Summary

In 1896 a Swedish scientist published a new idea. As humanity burned fossil fuels such as coal, which added carbon dioxide gas to the Earth's atmosphere, we would raise the planet's average temperature. This "greenhouse effect" was only one of many speculations about climate change, however, and not the most plausible. Scientists found technical reasons to argue that our emissions could not change the climate. Indeed most thought it was obvious that puny humanity could never affect the vast climate cycles, which were governed by a benign "balance of nature." In any case major change seemed impossible except over tens of thousands of years.

In the 1930s, people realized that the United States and North Atlantic region had warmed significantly during the previous half-century. Scientists supposed this was just a phase of some mild natural cycle, with unknown causes. Only one lone voice, the amateur G.S. Callendar, insisted that greenhouse warming was on the way. Whatever the cause of warming, everyone thought that if it happened to continue for the next few centuries, so much the better.

In the 1950s, Callendar's claims provoked a few scientists to look into the question with improved techniques and calculations. What made that possible was a sharp increase of government funding, especially from military agencies with Cold War concerns about the weather and the seas. The new studies showed that, contrary to earlier crude estimates, carbon dioxide could indeed build up in the atmosphere and should bring warming. Painstaking measurements drove home the point in 1960 by showing that the level of the gas was in fact rising, year by year.

Of course I do. From the a site of the largest Scientific Society on this planet, the American Institute of Physics. And I can present and have presented vidoes on the present day effects of the GHGs we are putting into our atmosphere from the Scientific Society that has more climate scientists in it than any other, the American Geophysical Union.

American Geophysical Union (AGU)

BWHAAAAAAAAAA........

You really need to do some basic scientific research.

The model that the AGU folks used, what was its predictive outcome phase of theroy falsification?

Do you even know?

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh Silly Billy, that is the leading scientists in this nation talking. Not a lying poster on an unimportant message board. And the AGU presents evidence of what is happening at present, not just models. I suggest anyone that doubts that to look at some of the videos.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Oh Silly Billy, that is the leading scientists in this nation talking. Not a lying poster on an unimportant message board. And the AGU presents evidence of what is happening at present, not just models. I suggest anyone that doubts that to look at some of the videos.

SO you dont even have a clue... Now that's funny and telling at the same time.. The models used in their forecasting FAILED.. Now why is that important? Its important because it means the theroy is WRONG.. When theories are wrong your supposed to reevaluate why, not adjust the data sets up to match your failed theories.. But that is your kind of pseudo-science.

 

[Old Rocks]

Silly ass, I have repeatedly posted Dr. Hansen's rather accurate predictions made in 1981. Not only that, at that time the denialists were claiming that there was no warming at all happening. And when it was apparent to all that there was, they then changed their claims to it was 'natural cycles' without ever defining what cycles those were.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Silly ass, I have repeatedly posted Dr. Hansen's rather accurate predictions made in 1981. Not only that, at that time the denialists were claiming that there was no warming at all happening. And when it was apparent to all that there was, they then changed their claims to it was 'natural cycles' without ever defining what cycles those were.

Well you silly ass, Dr Hansen's predictions have all FAILED miserably. Yet even though you have been show this over and over again, you continue to post them as if they have any significance or relevance to real science. All of his predictions have failed or have been shown deceitfully contrived..

Keep your head firmly impacted their Old Fraud..


Now tell me Old Fraud, how are you going to measure the wealth redistribution and its effect to see if its on track and doing what you want? Its certainly not about anything scientific as shown in the OP... come on now show us..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Obama wants to sign up for this fraud and force Americans from capitalism and the greatest country on earth. Its time to take back our government and tell these liars to pound sand!

 

[Crick]

And how will you take back "your government"?

 

[Old Rocks]

He will sign his welfare check every month.

 

[Billy_Bob]

He will sign his welfare check every month.

Like he does yours now?

The UN-IPCC and Paris is just another bunch of leaches that need to be cut off from wealth they didn't work for. Socialism never works. That is why they are stealing the wealth from us capitalists, who work and make money, by lying about the earths climate. They are justifying their theft using failed socialist premises.. Its funny they are using Failed Climate predictions to promote their failed ideology.

 

[flacaltenn]

Global Warming Policy Foundation - SourceWatch

Funding not transparent; just 1.6% comes from memberships
The Global Warming Policy Foundation does not reveal where its funding comes from.[6] In their first years accounts they say "the soil we till is highly controversial, and anyone who puts their head above the parapet has to be prepared to endure a degree of public vilification. For that reason we offer all our donors the protection of anonymity".[7] The accounts show the extent to which the secretive Foundation is funded by anonymous donors, compared with income from membership fees. Its total income for the period up to 31 July 2010 was £503,302, of which only £8,168 (or 1.6%) came from membership contributions. The foundation charges a minimum annual membership fee of £100.[8]

In 2012, the Guardian exposed Lawson's links to coal-fired power companies in Europe.[9]

"900 papers" claim; subsequent analysis shows Exxon ties, Energy and Environment papers
In mid-April 2011, the GWPF provided "900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm".[19] The blog Carbon Brief analyzed them, and found that -

9 of the top 10 authors had ties to ExxonMobil
"prominent scientists featured on the list didn't agree that their work supported skepticism about anthropogenic global warming - and had unsuccessfully asked for their work to be removed from similar lists in the past", and
the most-cited journal was Energy and Environment, a journal with a very low impact factor whose editors are AGW deniers.[20]

Since when did that rag achieve the status of a peer reviewed journal? It never has been such, and never will be. More lies from Silly Billy.

Offsides penalty. 5 yards. Next down..

You're a bit hasty to go off impeaching the source when you appear to have the WRONG SOURCE. It's not the GWPF that published this paper. LomBorg is bigger than all that. It's "Global Policy" journal. And read the sponsoring institution and say you're sorry..

Impact of Current Climate Proposals

1. Bjorn Lomborg

Article first published online: 9 NOV 2015

DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.12295

© 2015 The Authors. Global Policy published by Durham University and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

 

[Old Rocks]

You are correct. Looked it up again, and seems to be a legitimate journal. Try to be more careful. Now if I just had the time, I would read the article, although I have not been impressed by Lomborg's previous works.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You are correct. Looked it up again, and seems to be a legitimate journal. Try to be more careful. Now if I just had the time, I would read the article, although I have not been impressed by Lomborg's previous works.

Translated:

This does not fit my religious beliefs so it must be wrong..

 

[Crick]

Billy Bob, are you a graduate economist now?