Bill Introduced to end Support of IPCC with Taxpayer Dollars

If you get paid for such a basic history, you are overpaid. Tuzo Wilson's study of ophiolites did, indeed, open the field to the history of the plate movements.
 
If you get paid for such a basic history, you are overpaid. Tuzo Wilson's study of ophiolites did, indeed, open the field to the history of the plate movements.




What was that oltrakarfraud? You never even mentioned Wilson until I pointed him out to you. Typical internet "expert" that you are you never heard of him till I pointed out the significant contributions he made to the theory.
 
...climate science has been operating on a modified version of this scam. the public forgets all the botched earlier attemps and believes the the first year of a new 100 year projection but the trick is that the model is always new and alwways in the first few years.

can you support this assertion with compelling, verifiable information?

can you direct me to printouts of the 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2000 versions of the GISS general circulation model for their 100 year forecast? the same for the MET model? the canadian model? what projections come out of today's modern versions of the models if you load them up with parameters from 75 years ago and run them up to the present? will they be close to todays reality? will they be close to each other?

I don't have access to the full course of your request, neither should this level of scrutiny be neccessary to the support I asked you for. It isn't up to me proof and support your assertions, that burden lies with those who make the assertion. I do know that this course of action ids the normal manner in which such models are tested and proofed, through the running of historic data and comparing the results to present, real-world measurements and conditions. If you believe your assertions, provide the statements, studies and published findings/projections that support them.
 
can you support this assertion with compelling, verifiable information?

can you direct me to printouts of the 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2000 versions of the GISS general circulation model for their 100 year forecast? the same for the MET model? the canadian model? what projections come out of today's modern versions of the models if you load them up with parameters from 75 years ago and run them up to the present? will they be close to todays reality? will they be close to each other?

I don't have access to the full course of your request, neither should this level of scrutiny be neccessary to the support I asked you for. It isn't up to me proof and support your assertions, that burden lies with those who make the assertion. I do know that this course of action ids the normal manner in which such models are tested and proofed, through the running of historic data and comparing the results to present, real-world measurements and conditions. If you believe your assertions, provide the statements, studies and published findings/projections that support them.

I just pointed out the flaws. I dont think the models could predict today's climate from running parameters from 75 years ago. I dont think the models can correctly project climate 75 years in the future. I know that the models are regularly changed to give more realistic figures for the present and near future, therefore they are always in the first few years of 100 year projections. Why do you believe my statements are inaccurate? havent you seen the graphs of the various models when their forecasts and precasts are plotted? it is a joke.
 
Well, yes, the models are a joke. A bad joke. The affects of the warming are having far greater affect than predicted. So what we are seeing is a climate much more sensative to warming than we previously thought.
 
Well, yes, the models are a joke. A bad joke. The affects of the warming are having far greater affect than predicted. So what we are seeing is a climate much more sensative to warming than we previously thought.





Hansen was 300 percent off. Even with the CO2 levels increasing far beyond what he predicted. I guess that is the alarmists version of accurate huh? Also I love the consistency of the alarmist predictions, they allways end in could, possibly, might, etc. As I wrote above, Wilson said "if my theory is correct the Navy's seismometers will show these patterns which will then proove the existence of the transform faults. Please not eht difference...."WILL", not could.
 
I just pointed out the flaws. I dont think the models could predict today's climate from running parameters from 75 years ago. I dont think the models can correctly project climate 75 years in the future. I know that the models are regularly changed to give more realistic figures for the present and near future, therefore they are always in the first few years of 100 year projections. Why do you believe my statements are inaccurate? havent you seen the graphs of the various models when their forecasts and precasts are plotted? it is a joke.

Your beliefs, perceptions and most importantly, assertions. Support them, or leave them hang as the unfounded mythunderstandings they appear to be. As Westhall's tagline quote states: "He who asserts must also prove"
 
I just pointed out the flaws. I dont think the models could predict today's climate from running parameters from 75 years ago. I dont think the models can correctly project climate 75 years in the future. I know that the models are regularly changed to give more realistic figures for the present and near future, therefore they are always in the first few years of 100 year projections. Why do you believe my statements are inaccurate? havent you seen the graphs of the various models when their forecasts and precasts are plotted? it is a joke.

Your beliefs, perceptions and most importantly, assertions. Support them, or leave them hang as the unfounded mythunderstandings they appear to be. As Westhall's tagline quote states: "He who asserts must also prove"




That is true. According to uniformiatarianism anything that has happened before in the historical record must be looked at as the most logical proximal cause for any observed phenomena today. So far nothing that has happened in the climate arena is remarkable in any way. There has been no rapid warming as predicted by Hansen, there have been no increases in hurricane activity or power, no, in fact there is historical data that shows much worse storms that had occured in the past.

It is up to you to prove your hypothesis, the null hypothesis is hanging around your neck, not the sceptics. We are merely saying that all that we are seeing today we have seen in the past with no input capable from man. Therefore, it is merely a repeat of past natural cycles that we are seeing today.

So, please show us any climate or "precipitation event", or whatever weather "event" you care to, that has not happened repeatedly in the past.
 
Hansen was 300 percent off. Even with the CO2 levels increasing far beyond what he predicted...

supporting cite/reference please




Go to page 7 of his original report. You will see his graph with the three most likely scenarios. He felt that scenario A was most likely, he also predicted less CO2 would be injected into the atmosphere than has actually been emplaced, that too is in the paper. Then you can take a look at the UAH numbers and place them in his graph and you will see that the UAH number is below even Hansens best case of scenario C.

Alternativly I also posted the graph for you with Hansens predictions and the actual observed temp record.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
 

Attachments

  • $HANSEN.jpg
    $HANSEN.jpg
    65.8 KB · Views: 62
Hansen was 300 percent off. Even with the CO2 levels increasing far beyond what he predicted...

supporting cite/reference please




Go to page 7 of his original report. You will see his graph with the three most likely scenarios. He felt that scenario A was most likely, he also predicted less CO2 would be injected into the atmosphere than has actually been emplaced, that too is in the paper. Then you can take a look at the UAH numbers and place them in his graph and you will see that the UAH number is below even Hansens best case of scenario C.

Alternativly I also posted the graph for you with Hansens predictions and the actual observed temp record.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

And, as usual, you post a lie. Here is the real line. Note this is UAH, GISS, and Direct Surface measurements. And the rise, from 1982 to present, is 0.4 C, not 0.2 C as indictated in the line you put on there.

File:Satellite Temperatures.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With the line put in correctly, the temperature for the present is just below the B line. Which Hansen considered the most likely projection.

By having the line start in 1960 below the zero line, and end in 2010 with a 0.4 C rise, you have created a false graph and a lie.
 
supporting cite/reference please




Go to page 7 of his original report. You will see his graph with the three most likely scenarios. He felt that scenario A was most likely, he also predicted less CO2 would be injected into the atmosphere than has actually been emplaced, that too is in the paper. Then you can take a look at the UAH numbers and place them in his graph and you will see that the UAH number is below even Hansens best case of scenario C.

Alternativly I also posted the graph for you with Hansens predictions and the actual observed temp record.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

And, as usual, you post a lie. Here is the real line. Note this is UAH, GISS, and Direct Surface measurements. And the rise, from 1982 to present, is 0.4 C, not 0.2 C as indictated in the line you put on there.

File:Satellite Temperatures.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With the line put in correctly, the temperature for the present is just below the B line. Which Hansen considered the most likely projection.

By having the line start in 1960 below the zero line, and end in 2010 with a 0.4 C rise, you have created a false graph and a lie.




Wiki huh? Nice try but you fail. And c'mon big man neg me if you think I've lied.
 
I don't have access to the full course of your request, neither should this level of scrutiny be neccessary to the support I asked you for. It isn't up to me proof and support your assertions, that burden lies with those who make the assertion. I do know that this course of action is the normal manner in which such models are tested and proofed, through the running of historic data and comparing the results to present, real-world measurements and conditions. If you believe your assertions, provide the statements, studies and published findings/projections that support them.

I just pointed out the flaws. I dont think the models could predict today's climate from running parameters from 75 years ago. I dont think the models can correctly project climate 75 years in the future. I know that the models are regularly changed to give more realistic figures for the present and near future, therefore they are always in the first few years of 100 year projections. Why do you believe my statements are inaccurate? havent you seen the graphs of the various models when their forecasts and precasts are plotted? it is a joke.

It isn't up to me to proof the inaccuracy of your statements, it is up to you to provide proofs supporting and confirming your assertions, without such they are merely unsupported assertions without merit or justification.
 
Hansen was 300 percent off. Even with the CO2 levels increasing far beyond what he predicted...

supporting cite/reference please




Go to page 7 of his original report. You will see his graph with the three most likely scenarios. He felt that scenario A was most likely, he also predicted less CO2 would be injected into the atmosphere than has actually been emplaced, that too is in the paper. Then you can take a look at the UAH numbers and place them in his graph and you will see that the UAH number is below even Hansens best case of scenario C.

Alternativly I also posted the graph for you with Hansens predictions and the actual observed temp record.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

First off, read the paper, Hansen wasn't making predictions, he was running senarios which looked at potential outcomes given particular events and circumstances. Scenario A assumed continued exponential greenhouse gas growth and included trace gas amplifiers with no offsetting dust/particulate interactions, scenario B assumed a reduced linear rate of growth, and scenario C assumed a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions around the year 2000.

Secondly, Hansen's 1988 paper used an extremely high sensitivity rating for CO2 (4.2ºC per doubling of CO2, IIRC) instead of the more traditionally accepted 3ºC (or more accurate ~3.4ºC/doubling of CO2 we actually see). Of course the paper has been revisited upon multiple occassions in the mainstream science and its flaws as well as its strengths are generally and widely recognized within the climate research community. Hansen himself revisited that earlier paper and the retrocasting of climate from past data in seperate studies back 2006. There is nothing in these flaws or weaknesses, however which seriously impact or alter the nature of modern mainstream climate understandings.
 
supporting cite/reference please




Go to page 7 of his original report. You will see his graph with the three most likely scenarios. He felt that scenario A was most likely, he also predicted less CO2 would be injected into the atmosphere than has actually been emplaced, that too is in the paper. Then you can take a look at the UAH numbers and place them in his graph and you will see that the UAH number is below even Hansens best case of scenario C.

Alternativly I also posted the graph for you with Hansens predictions and the actual observed temp record.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

First off, read the paper, Hansen wasn't making predictions, he was running senarios which looked at potential outcomes given particular events and circumstances. Scenario A assumed continued exponential greenhouse gas growth and included trace gas amplifiers with no offsetting dust/particulate interactions, scenario B assumed a reduced linear rate of growth, and scenario C assumed a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions around the year 2000.

Secondly, Hansen's 1988 paper used an extremely high sensitivity rating for CO2 (4.2ºC per doubling of CO2, IIRC) instead of the more traditionally accepted 3ºC (or more accurate ~3.4ºC/doubling of CO2 we actually see). Of course the paper has been revisited upon multiple occassions in the mainstream science and its flaws as well as its strengths are generally and widely recognized within the climate research community. Hansen himself revisited that earlier paper and the retrocasting of climate from past data in seperate studies back 2006. There is nothing in these flaws or weaknesses, however which seriously impact or alter the nature of modern mainstream climate understandings.




Sure. Whatever you say. Here on Earth that is called a prediction. It is also known as hedging your bets. Here is another news article from near the same time frame. On your planet you probably consider this a happy birthday wish, but down here on Earth this too is a prediction.
 

Attachments

  • $hansen.jpg
    $hansen.jpg
    101 KB · Views: 67
Sure. Whatever you say. Here on Earth that is called a prediction. It is also known as hedging your bets. Here is another news article from near the same time frame. On your planet you probably consider this a happy birthday wish, but down here on Earth this too is a prediction.

And where was this article published?
cite and reference please.
 
Sure. Whatever you say. Here on Earth that is called a prediction. It is also known as hedging your bets. Here is another news article from near the same time frame. On your planet you probably consider this a happy birthday wish, but down here on Earth this too is a prediction.

And where was this article published?
cite and reference please.




The Miami News Wednesday Afternoon June 11 1986. Available from Google.
 
December 2001

UN panel suggests new international taxes to help fund development


By Jullyette Ukabiala

As aid from rich countries slides further, a UN independent panel on development financing recently proposed new ways of raising more funds to rescue millions of people from poverty -- most of them in sub-Saharan Africa. In 1999, donor countries gave just $12 bn to the region as official development assistance (ODA), $6 bn less than they gave in 1995. Such aid, even at its peak, fell far short of the continent's needs.

The panel, chaired by former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, was set up by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to identify innovative methods for raising the estimated $50 bn needed yearly to implement the UN's commitments to poverty reduction and sustainable growth in developing countries. Its recommendations will be considered by the UN conference on financing for development, to be held in Monterrey, Mexico, in March 2002.

Among the proposals are taxes on the consumption of fossil fuels and on international currency transactions. The panel urges new ways to boost aid and investment flows to poor countries, and to assist countries raise funds from within their own economies through better political and economic management, including by improving their ability to collect domestic taxes. Such efforts would be supported by the establishment of an international tax organization and the holding of a summit that would address problems arising from globalization, the panel stated.

Members agreed that reversing the widening and "shameful" gap between rich and poor countries "is the pre-eminent moral and humanitarian challenge of our age." And sub-Saharan Africa, they noted, should be a priority. "Nowhere is a global commitment to poverty reduction needed more than in this region. Sub-Saharan Africa has the largest proportion of people living on less than one dollar a day, and indeed, its people are almost as poor as they were 20 years ago."

A currency tax

Combating poverty, the panel argued, requires the provision of vital services which strengthen social and political stability, such as peacekeeping, healthcare facilities and programmes for environmental protection -- described collectively as "global public goods." To secure the enormous amount of money needed yearly for that, it said a global system of taxation is necessary, either through a currency transaction tax or a tax on the consumption of fossil fuels.

Oil refinery in South Africa: a modest tax on fossil fuel consumption could raise new funds for development, while also encouraging a shift to cleaner energy sources.

Photo: ©iAfrika Photos

A currency transaction tax, also known as a "Tobin tax" -- named after Yale University economist James Tobin, who first proposed it -- would have individual countries collect a "small tax" of between 0.1 and 0.5 per cent on all foreign exchange transactions in their national currencies anywhere in the world. With the total value of such transactions currently put at $1,600 bn a day, up to $400 bn yearly would be raised at a minimum tax rate of 0.1 per cent. Each country would keep part of the revenue collected and release the remainder to international agencies funding global public goods.

The panel noted that such a tax could have a side benefit of helping to curb potentially damaging speculative buying and selling of currencies -- aimed at making profit later when prices change. Such "gambling" was in part blamed for the devastating capital outflows that plunged Southeast Asian countries into economic crisis in 1997-98.

The Tobin tax has been criticized on the grounds that it could be evaded, might not actually yield the expected benefits and could unwittingly hurt global economic growth by discouraging financial transactions of all kinds. However, several major industrial nations have voiced support for the tax, which is also backed by a growing coalition of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The panel decided that "further rigorous technical study is needed" before any conclusions could be reached on its feasibility. Ms. Robin Round, policy analyst for the Halifax Initiative -- one of the NGOs promoting the tax -- told Africa Recovery that the call for further study "gives us an important opening to educate more people about the promises of a Tobin tax and to keep pushing for the consensus necessary to adopt it."

Taxing fuel consumption

The Zedillo panel also proposed a tax on the consumption of fossil fuels. Support for such a "carbon tax" has been growing since the 1992 UN Earth Summit focused international attention on the damage to the environment caused by excessive use of fossil fuels worldwide. The release of greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, contributes to global warming and climate change.

The main energy sources that would be affected by a carbon tax include coal, petroleum, kerosene and natural gas. The tax would be reflected in an increase in their price, at a level based on the capacity of each type of fuel to emit carbon dioxide. The higher the carbon content, the higher the minimum tax rate. The tax would likely be collected by fuel vendors. Implementation would not be difficult since many countries already impose taxes on fossil fuels. An additional carbon tax, the panel hoped, should encourage consumers to shift to lower or non carbon-emitting sources of energy, such as hydro-power, solar energy and wind power.

The panel gave no estimates of how much a carbon tax could generate. Industrial countries would agree to release their carbon tax revenue to international organizations funding global public goods. Developing countries would invest their proceeds in their own economies, enabling them to increase public spending.


The panel members agreed that reversing the widening and "shameful" gap between rich and poor countries "is the pre-eminent moral and humanitarian challenge of our age," with sub-Saharan Africa as a priority.

African states, like most other countries, are heavily dependent on fossil fuels for transport and industrial activities in both urban and rural areas. A carbon tax, which would make fuel more expensive for many families, would therefore also reduce the amount of money available for food and other basic necessities. Public demonstrations in countries like Nigeria and Zimbabwe following fuel price increases also indicate that a carbon tax could aggravate social discontent and political instability.

Would such a tax be good or bad for poor African countries? Good, says Ms. Emira Woods, programme manager for development policy issues at InterAction, a US-based coalition of over 165 NGOs, many of which are involved in development and humanitarian activities in Africa. Besides helping to clean

up the environment, it would provide them with more development funding, she notes. Similarly, the deputy director of the regional bureau for Africa of the UN Development Programme (UNDP), Mr. Jacques Loup, told Africa Recovery that a carbon tax in rich countries would help "boost the international resource base for aid to Africa." However, Mr. Geoffrey Mwau, an economic and social policy adviser at the UN Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), cautions that the benefits would be lost if the tax collected from rich countries is treated as a "substitute" for ODA.

An international tax organization

With increasing cross-border movement of goods, services and capital in the world today, states are less able to collect taxes from multinational corporations, the panel observed, bringing substantial losses in potential revenue. Pointing out that taxes have become a potential source of conflicts among states, it noted that "the taxes that one country can impose are often constrained by the tax rates of others." The lack of precise and established regulations for taxing the income of multinational corporations makes it difficult to determine which country is entitled to which tax. All that exists are "complex and in some respects arbitrary conventions," the panel said.

Several international and governmental organizations already deal with international tax issues, including a UN group of experts on international cooperation in tax matters. The panel said a new international tax organization should be created to assume all functions performed by existing institutions. It would serve as a global intergovernmental forum for international cooperation on all tax issues. It would also help resolve conflicts between countries and help them to increase tax revenue by fostering information exchanges and measures that could reduce tax evasion on investment and personal income earned at home and abroad. Funds raised could be used to increase spending on public services.

The capacity of many African states to generate income on their own is often hindered by inefficient tax collection. Mr. Loup of UNDP believes the proposed international tax organization could help African governments reform their tax policies, but it should not interfere with their authority to design their own tax systems. The real problem with the tax policies of African states has more to do with corruption, Mr. Mwau of ECA believes. Most Africans are poor and the small number of the rich from whom substantial taxes could be collected "are able to avoid taxes through corruption." For as long as that remains the case, he argues, tax reforms alone would not help Africa.

Globalizing decision-making

Existing international bodies, "largely designed for the world of fifty years ago," are no longer equipped to address problems arising from the growing interdependence of nations, the panel stated. There are no satisfactory means of dealing with global economic "shocks" and no effective way to ensure that all voices are heard. "Global economic decision-making has become increasingly concentrated in a few countries."

The panel called for the creation of a global council to lead the international community "at the highest level" in managing today's global issues. The council would be more broadly based than the Group of Seven industrialized countries or international financial institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Its decisions would not be legally binding, but it should have the political clout to promote development, encourage major international economic organizations to improve their policies and build consensus for resolving global economic and social problems. The panel recommended that the UN convene after next year's Mexico conference, a "globalization summit" of heads of state to decide on the shape and status of such a global council.

African leaders and advocacy groups have been complaining about the continent's increasing marginalization and impoverishment as a result of globalization and are not sure how the proposed global council and summit could benefit them. They "would be worthwhile," Mr. Loup said, so long as they devote adequate attention to issues that seriously affect Africa -- crippling debt, aid flows, information and communication technology, market access and the environment. Mr. Lamin Manneh, UNDP's strategic and regional programme adviser for Africa, said more needs to be known about how a global council would help resolve "the problems we face today." A special forum or channel, he argued, should be created to enable African countries to express their concerns forcefully within the new institutions. The "big problem" is that the council would not have binding legal authority, says Ms. Woods, who nevertheless remains optimistic about the potential benefits of a global council to African states.

The ECA's Mr. Mwau notes that "attempts to deal with global issues through the existing mechanisms have failed not just because the institutional arrangements for dealing with them are inadequate, but more fundamentally because there is no political will." The creation of a new global council by itself would not help unless the international community commits to enforcing the council's decisions. African states, he argues, would benefit only if they are not excluded from making those decisions.

UN panel suggests new international taxes to help fund development
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top