Climate chief warns of 'urgency' as CO2 levels rise

Apr 29, 2013
The United Nations' climate chief Christiana Figueres speaks during a press conference at the Moon Palace Hotel in Cancun, Quintana Roo State, Mexico, on November 29, 2010. Figueres called for urgency Monday as she opened a new round of global talks amid warnings that Earth-warming carbon dioxide levels were approaching a symbolic threshold never seen in human history.

The UN's climate chief called for urgency Monday as she opened a new round of global talks amid warnings that Earth-warming carbon dioxide levels were approaching a symbolic threshold never seen in human history.

Data from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii have shown the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to be at 399.72 parts per million (ppm), Christiana Figueres told climate negotiators in Bonn.

"We are just about to cross the 400 ppm threshold," she said in a prepared speech that stressed "a heightened sense of urgency".

The (IPCC), which informs policy makers on the science of global warming, has said the atmospheric must be limited to 400 ppm for Earth's average temperature rise to be contained at between two and 2.4 degrees Celsius (3.6 and 4.3 degrees Fahrenheit).

The talks in Bonn are the first since negotiations in Qatar last December set down a two-track process for tackling .

The main goal is a new climate treaty that will be concluded by 2015 and take effect by 2020.

Pre-2020, countries agreed to seek ways of closing the growing gap between carbon emission targets and the actual curbs required to contain warming to a manageable two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) from pre-industrial levels.

The US-based Scripps Institution of Oceanography, which keeps a record of the Mauna Loa figures, said last week that in the atmosphere could in May rise above 400 ppm for the first time in human history.

The observatory's record starts at 316 ppm in March 1958, rising every year.

Atmospheric levels of CO2, the main greenhouse gas, were probably last as high as 400 ppm in the Pliocene period, between 3.2 million and five million years ago when Earth was a warmer place, Scripps said in a statement.

The carbon concentration never exceeded 300 ppm for some 800,000 years, it added. Before the Industrial Revolution, when man first started pumping carbon into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, CO2 levels were at about 280 ppm.

Explore further: Minorities aren't well represented in environmental groups, study says

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Atmospheric carbon levels nearing historic threshold

Apr 24, 2013

(Phys.org) —For the first time in human history, concentrations of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) could rise above 400 parts per million (ppm) for sustained lengths of time throughout much of the Northern Hemisphere ...

US scientists report big jump in heat-trapping CO2 (Update)

Mar 05, 2013

The amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the air jumped dramatically in 2012, making it very unlikely that global warming can be limited to another 2 degrees (1.2 C) as many global leaders have hoped, new federal figures ...

Recommended for you

Underwater elephants

11 hours ago

In the high-tech world of science, researchers sometimes need to get back to basics. UC Santa Barbara's Douglas McCauley did just that to study the impacts of the bumphead parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum) on cor ...

Malaysia air quality 'unhealthy' as haze obscures skies

17 hours ago

Air quality around Malaysia's capital Kuala Lumpur and on Borneo island was "unhealthy" on Tuesday, with one town reaching "very unhealthy" levels as haze—mostly from forest fires in Indonesia—obscured skies.

User comments : 78

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Omnishambles
2.5 / 5 (24) Apr 29, 2013
Nothing magical about 0.04%. The stated 2.4 degrees C temperature increase is at least double what might be expected based on several recent peer reviewed climate sensitivity papers. The sky is not falling down.
VENDItardE
2.4 / 5 (34) Apr 29, 2013
her only urgency is getting as much control and money as possible before the house of cards collapses
mememine69
1.5 / 5 (26) Apr 29, 2013
Climate change science is a war crime!

Science only agrees it COULD be a crisis and has never in 28 years of intensive research ever said their crisis "WILL" happen, only might happen.
So how close to irreversible and unstoppable and runaway warming will science take us before they say their crisis is: "inevitable" or "eventual" or "WILL happen" just like they say asteroid hits are. Climate change is real but really not a crisis or as real as an asteroid hit.
Science has never said the worst crisis imaginable WILL happen, only could.
Prove me wrong or at least stop fear mongering my kids.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (26) Apr 29, 2013
And in other news:

"Minnesota ...new record for the latest thaw of the state's frozen lakes, in history."

http://news.yahoo...555.html

Shakescene21
3.1 / 5 (23) Apr 29, 2013
The "crisis" will actually be more like a slow-motion train wreck. I don't see how it can be averted since there is little hope of an effective international agreement any time soon. (If they actually have an agreement in 2015 it will probably be trivial in substance.)

In my opinion, the only realistic solution to global warming is a massive international R&D&D (research, development, and demonstration) program to make carbon-neutral energy cheaper than carbon fuels. When that finally happens, energy users will eagerly switch from carbon fuels and Global Warming will recede.
Howhot
3.4 / 5 (17) Apr 29, 2013
Warning! Warning! Warning! Danger Will Robinson! That's pretty much what is being said by by climate chief Christiana Figueres. I knew the deniers would just leap at the chance to pile on and demonstrate how stupid they are. It's amazing how dim the bulbs are with respect to CO2 ppm, climate change and average global temperature rise. 2.4C (or 4.3F) is huge when you consider that is averaged over the whole globe! It doesn't even take into account SEASONAL temp changes like Summer and Winter. So, summers in the USA should be at least double that and then some for the area you live. So more like 10F +/- 1.6F can be expected. So normally if you summer was 90F, it will now be more likely 100F. If your summer was more likely 80F it will be more like to be above 90F.

Urban areas need to prepare their AC's and double check that they are functioning. This is going to be a miserably hot summer this year. And as I have been predicting for many years now, it will only get worst
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (17) Apr 30, 2013
Minnesota ay?

Is Minnesota reflective of global climate?

Nope.

"Minnesota ...new record " - UbVonTard

So what is UbVonTard farting about?

Nothing but pure ignorance.
VendicarE
4 / 5 (16) Apr 30, 2013
VendiTardE values nothing but money. So he is incapable of comprehending that
other people value things other than money.

"her only urgency is getting as much control and money" - VendiTardE

It is a mental illness.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (22) Apr 30, 2013
UN: Help! 400ppm and no change in temperature for 16 years. We are going to be tarred and feathered!
StarGazer2011
1.8 / 5 (21) Apr 30, 2013
Alomst 10,000 cold records broken in the USA between March and April 2013...

http://www.rumorm...d=275256

And yet this isnt climate of course; its only climate when warm records are being broken right Vendicar?
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (20) Apr 30, 2013
Minnesota ay?

Is Minnesota reflective of global climate?

Nope.

Minnesota ...new record - Uba
So what is Uba farting about?

Nothing but pure ignorance.
Is this coming from the same Vendispambot which claimed last year it would never snow in the U.S. again, and America was becoming one vast desert? Why yes, yes it is!

Is this also coming from the same Vendispambot which assured us last year that the unusually warm North American Spring and Summer was a sure sign of global warming? Why yes! Yes, it is!

Touche'!

LOL

deepsand
2.7 / 5 (23) Apr 30, 2013
Climate change science is a war crime!

The real crime lies in ignoring that which will adversely affect the future of Earth and all of its inhabitants, all for the sake of a few temporary creature comforts.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (19) Apr 30, 2013
Climate change science is a war crime!
The real crime lies in ignoring that which will adversely affect the future of Earth and all of its inhabitants, all for the sake of a few temporary creature comforts.
So stop using power. Stop posting here.

antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (21) Apr 30, 2013
"Minnesota ...new record for the latest thaw of the state's frozen lakes, in history."

Weather. Climate. Know the difference.

If you don't then don't bother trying to discuss climate change. It only makes you look like a fool.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (21) Apr 30, 2013
"Minnesota ...new record for the latest thaw of the state's frozen lakes, in history."

Weather. Climate. Know the difference.
LOL. Is this from yet another AGWite which insisted last year's heatwave was proof of global warming? LOL

If you don't then don't bother trying to discuss climate change. It only makes you look like a fool.
You should know! LOL.

gmurphy
4.3 / 5 (18) Apr 30, 2013
The earth is warming, this is undeniable, look to the study funded by the Koch brothers, these guys are the last people on the planet who want to show that the world is warming due to human produced CO2 but that's exactly what their study concluded, anyone who cannot accept that this poses a potential risk to future generations doesn't deserve to produce offspring.
Egleton
3.6 / 5 (17) Apr 30, 2013

Let me help poor ol' Kink Coal.
You will make a lot more money manufacturing photocells. But you are going to have to get off your fat arse and spend some of that loot that you are so afraid of risking.
Whatever happened to the tobacco shills?
deepsand
3 / 5 (24) Apr 30, 2013
"Minnesota ...new record for the latest thaw of the state's frozen lakes, in history."

Weather. Climate. Know the difference.
LOL. Is this from yet another AGWite which insisted last year's heatwave was proof of global warming?

This from the idiot who fails to grasp that increased volatility, as evidenced by increased numbers of highs and lows, is evidence of increased thermal energy.
deepsand
3 / 5 (25) Apr 30, 2013

Let me help poor ol' Kink Coal.
You will make a lot more money manufacturing photocells. But you are going to have to get off your fat arse and spend some of that loot that you are so afraid of risking.
Whatever happened to the tobacco shills?

Some of them, like Fred Singer, became shills for Big Energy.
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (16) Apr 30, 2013
The earth is warming, this is undeniable


That is not the question. The question is how much man's activities are causing warming, and whether it represents a crisis.

The fact that CO2 models failed to predict the slowdown in warming during the last 15 years is an indication that CO2 is not an important factor in warming, as temperature and CO2 levels become increasingly uncoupled. There is absolutely no proof that CO2 is causing a crisis.

Politicians like Christiana Figueres have financial incentives to resort to alarmist rhetoric to promote the now defunct idea that CO2 is creating a crisis. It is now exclusively a political, not a scientific issue.
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (16) Apr 30, 2013
Weather. Climate. Know the difference.


Well, when we talk about climate, we are talking about trends in the weather, just over a longer period of time. Therefore, it is appropriate to talk about the weather when discussing climate. If one sees a trend in the weather, such as a marked slowdown in expected warming over the last 15 years, it is appropriate to discuss it in terms of the climate. If one is having unusually severe winters for several years in a row, it is not inappropriate to discuss it in terms of change in the climate. The terms are not mutually exclusive.
Claudius
1.2 / 5 (18) Apr 30, 2013
The real crime lies in ignoring that which will adversely affect the future of Earth and all of its inhabitants, all for the sake of a few temporary creature comforts.


No, the real crime is increasing the costs of energy to those who live in cold climates, resulting in increasing numbers of fatalities due to cold. For the sake of an unproven assertion that the use of energy is creating a warming crisis.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (21) Apr 30, 2013
How "climate changers" push their "science".
http://www.guardi...obbyists
packrat
1 / 5 (15) Apr 30, 2013
I believe it's changing simply because I've had to cut my grass in Jan for the last two years and normally that doesn't happen till March but I'm seriously beginning to wonder about our contributions to the problem now.

http://science.na...r_saber/

http://principia-...ere.html

http://iceagenow....osphere/
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (15) Apr 30, 2013
This is an amazing article. Here isChristiana Figueres, Climate Chief of the United Nations warning all of mankind that we have passed the 400ppm/volume of CO2, the highest ever in human's 100,000 year existence on earth, and all that the wingnuts on Physorg can pull out of their bag of slimy tricks is that it's getting cooler? Haha. What a bunch of dips.

Here is something real, read it and weep coal/fossil fuel loving climate deniers pond scu...

http://co2now.org...-widget/
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (21) May 01, 2013
The real crime lies in ignoring that which will adversely affect the future of Earth and all of its inhabitants, all for the sake of a few temporary creature comforts.


No, the real crime is increasing the costs of energy to those who live in cold climates, resulting in increasing numbers of fatalities due to cold. For the sake of an unproven assertion that the use of energy is creating a warming crisis.

You really are clueless, aren't you.
Claudius
1 / 5 (13) May 01, 2013
Here is something real, read it and weep coal/fossil fuel loving climate deniers pond scu...

http://co2now.org...-widget/


Well, the "something real" turned out to be documentation that CO2 levels are increasing. Ho Hum. What else is new.

The assertion that increasing CO2 levels are causing a catastrophic warming crisis has been debunked by the data that temperatures have not been increasing as predicted for the last 15 years, at the same time as CO2 levels have been soaring. Case closed. Those who persist in maintaining that CO2 is creating a warming crisis are just hangers-on that refuse to let go.
runrig
5 / 5 (10) May 01, 2013
Here is something real, read it and weep coal/fossil fuel loving climate deniers pond scu...

http://co2now.org...-widget/


Well, the "something real" turned out to be documentation that CO2 levels are increasing. Ho Hum. What else is new.

The assertion that increasing CO2 levels are causing a catastrophic warming crisis has been debunked by the data that temperatures have not been increasing as predicted for the last 15 years, at the same time as CO2 levels have been soaring. Case closed. Those who persist in maintaining that CO2 is creating a warming crisis are just hangers-on that refuse to let go.


Claudius: Do you not agree that the global temperature up to at least 1998 was contributed to by the warm ENSO phase.
Surely you must?
That being the case, what do you think will happen when the current cool phase, once again turns to warm?
Just asking.
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (14) May 01, 2013
Claudius: Do you not agree that the global temperature up to at least 1998 was contributed to by the warm ENSO phase.
Surely you must?
That being the case, what do you think will happen when the current cool phase, once again turns to warm?
Just asking.


As I understand it, the El Nino event may be a result of global warming, but I have not heard that it contributed to it. The rest is speculation. What do you think will happen if the current cool phase does not turn to warm? There is some speculation that we may be on the verge of another "little ice age." http://www.expres...-Ice-Age
runrig
5 / 5 (9) May 01, 2013
Claudius: Do you not agree that the global temperature up to at least 1998 was contributed to by the warm ENSO phase.
Surely you must?
That being the case, what do you think will happen when the current cool phase, once again turns to warm?
Just asking.


As I understand it, the El Nino event may be a result of global warming, but I have not heard that it contributed to it. The rest is speculation. What do you think will happen if the current cool phase does not turn to warm? There is some speculation that we may be on the verge of another "little ice age." http://www.expres...-Ice-Age


The ENSO cycle may be solar driven and it may be affected by GW. It is a natural climate cycle and will return to warm. See..
http://www.cpc.nc...-web.pdf
Also...
http://www.youtub..._0JZRIHF
The Alchemist
1.2 / 5 (18) May 03, 2013
Y'all do know that the Macadamia Nut station is sitting right atop an increasingly active volcano?
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (18) May 04, 2013
Y'all do know that the Macadamia Nut station is sitting right atop an increasingly active volcano?

IMMATERIAL.
The Alchemist
1.2 / 5 (18) May 04, 2013
Of course, plopping your number one sensor on top of a volcano that is spewing ever increasing amounts of CO2 is immaterial. It is just a coincidence!
runrig
5 / 5 (11) May 04, 2013
Of course, plopping your number one sensor on top of a volcano that is spewing ever increasing amounts of CO2 is immaterial. It is just a coincidence!


From ............ http://scrippsco2...tml#faq4

"If one looks at the minute-by-minute data from Mauna Loa, one finds rare occasions when the CO2 is elevated from emissions from fumaroles upwind on the mountain. The fumaroles are emitting constantly, so the timing of the events depends on wind direction and not changes in volcanic activity. These events impact only a tiny faction of the data and are easily distinguished from rest of the record. The reported version of the Mauna Loa record has been "filtered" to remove these events, as well as other certain other local effects, as described in the early publications (see Keeling 1960 Tellus paper)."
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (16) May 04, 2013
Atmospheric scientist Bill Nichols shows in this presentation how CO2 levels fluctuate with the seasons in Iowa. The data reveal that water and life are most likely responsible for CO2 levels.

http://www.thunde...eu-2013/
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (17) May 04, 2013
Of course, plopping your number one sensor on top of a volcano that is spewing ever increasing amounts of CO2 is immaterial. It is just a coincidence!

Clueless, aren't you.

I leave it as an exercise for you to determine why your objection is unfounded.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (17) May 04, 2013
Atmospheric scientist Bill Nichols shows in this presentation how CO2 levels fluctuate with the seasons in Iowa. The data reveal that water and life are most likely responsible for CO2 levels.

http://www.thunde...eu-2013/

Junk science from a darling of the "chemtrails" nuts, and one who also falsely claims that cold fusion has been confirmed.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (15) May 04, 2013
@runrig, I think you are just finding that you can believe two lies easier than one. The real back-up data is from the Antarctic, I leave it as an exercise to find out why that is a factor, however, remember, the Antartic has no plants to absorb CO2, and is the literal dumping ground for our world-wide air currents/weather.
Put another way, of all the existing points not influenced by industry, why are they relying on a station on a volcano whose activity has been increasing? I've read the rational: That the volcano's influence can be removed. This is just stupid. Yes, it can theoretically be done, however, 1. It is un-neccessary, 2. It increases your error bars unneccessarily.
I am sorry, but if you are not skeptical about this Al-Gorithm, you're simply putting your head in the sand, deep.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (16) May 04, 2013
Atmospheric scientist Bill Nichols shows in this presentation how CO2 levels fluctuate with the seasons in Iowa. The data reveal that water and life are most likely responsible for CO2 levels.

http://www.thunde...eu-2013/

Junk science from a darling of the "chemtrails" nuts, and one who also falsely claims that cold fusion has been confirmed.

Two completely fabricated lies, typical.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (12) May 04, 2013
@shakescience-your comment is kind of brilliant.
It misses one thing, submitted for consderation: Wind power at a household level can pretty much generate all the power a household needs, and has been able to do it since, say, mass producing motors/generators has been possible, around 1920. The wind above 40 ft is pretty constant, and you can have windmills that have arms, not blades, so they do not care about wind direction.
Put in that light:
Fossil fuels are so 20th century.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (17) May 05, 2013
Atmospheric scientist Bill Nichols shows in this presentation how CO2 levels fluctuate with the seasons in Iowa. The data reveal that water and life are most likely responsible for CO2 levels.

http://www.thunde...eu-2013/

Junk science from a darling of the "chemtrails" nuts, and one who also falsely claims that cold fusion has been confirmed.

Two completely fabricated lies, typical.

Didn't do your homework, did you.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (15) May 05, 2013
Atmospheric scientist Bill Nichols shows in this presentation how CO2 levels fluctuate with the seasons in Iowa. The data reveal that water and life are most likely responsible for CO2 levels.

http://www.thunde...eu-2013/

Junk science from a darling of the "chemtrails" nuts, and one who also falsely claims that cold fusion has been confirmed.

Two completely fabricated lies, typical.

Didn't do your homework, did you.

Yep, watched the video, and understand the context in which he was referring to 'chemtrails' and cold fusion. You? You believe everything on "chemtrail nuts" blogs? Rube!
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) May 05, 2013
Atmospheric scientist Bill Nichols shows in this presentation how CO2 levels fluctuate with the seasons in Iowa. The data reveal that water and life are most likely responsible for CO2 levels.

http://www.thunde...eu-2013/


Canthtink: I have to admit that the discussion by Bill Nichols that you point us to is one of the most ignorant videos I have seen by someone who professes to have a technical background. When he went on to talk about Cold Fusion being verified - he just really fell off a technical cliff. The idea of LASERs going through clouds and considering the laser light to be plasma just makes it clear he does not understand that a laser beam is light. And that light gets scattered. How could you point us to this and think we would consider this anything other than uneducated babbling?
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (17) May 05, 2013
Atmospheric scientist Bill Nichols shows in this presentation how CO2 levels fluctuate with the seasons in Iowa. The data reveal that water and life are most likely responsible for CO2 levels.

http://www.thunde...eu-2013/

Junk science from a darling of the "chemtrails" nuts, and one who also falsely claims that cold fusion has been confirmed.

Two completely fabricated lies, typical.

Didn't do your homework, did you.

Yep, watched the video, and understand the context in which he was referring to 'chemtrails' and cold fusion. You? You believe everything on "chemtrail nuts" blogs? Rube!

And, beyond watching the video, what did you research?

As for "chemtrail nuts," just what did I say that implied that I believed anything they say beyond what their claims are?

In any case, the video you cited is, with regard to the issue of GW in general, and AGW in particular, immaterial.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (16) May 05, 2013
The idea of LASERs going through clouds and considering the laser light to be plasma just makes it clear he does not understand that a laser beam is light.


Wow, just wow! If you don't understand that a laser beam ionizes the medium it travels through, there is little hope you can even understand the most basic aspects of science. Does your mom still spoon feed you? Talk about STOOPID!
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (17) May 05, 2013
The idea of LASERs going through clouds and considering the laser light to be plasma just makes it clear he does not understand that a laser beam is light.


Wow, just wow! If you don't understand that a laser beam ionizes the medium it travels through, ...

While it may or a may not ionize any particles that it strikes, a laser beam requires NO MEDIUM.

... there is little hope you can even understand the most basic aspects of science. Does your mom still spoon feed you? Talk about STOOPID!

Yep; that pretty much describes your misunderstandings of Physics.

thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) May 06, 2013
The idea of LASERs going through clouds and considering the laser light to be plasma just makes it clear he does not understand that a laser beam is light.


Wow, just wow! If you don't understand that a laser beam ionizes the medium it travels through, there is little hope you can even understand the most basic aspects of science. Does your mom still spoon feed you? Talk about STOOPID!


Cantthink: Do you have any idea how photons interact with electrons to form ions? They do it at specific wavelengths. That was shown in the early 1920s. Because of that a laser would have to have a specific wavelength that interacts with the molecules it is moving through to create ionized species and form a plasma. Take your laser pointer out and point it at your fence and try to see the "plasma" between the laser and the fence. There is none. (continued)
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) May 06, 2013
Continued for cantthink: So, a laser beam is made up of photons. A plasma is ionized species. They are not the same. When a laser beam hits a cloud the photons are mostly scattered by the water droplets. That is the reason that the laser does not go through a cloud well. You need to read a real simple book on lasers or a simple book on electromagnetic theory. Let me go over it one more time. A laser beam is made up of photons. A plasma is ionized species. Photons are not ionized and cannot be a plasma. You can make plasmas by using heat or photons of exactly the right power and they usually are at high energy. You cannot ionize a cloud to product a plasma with a laser. Please explain the exact mechanism by which you are claiming that a laser is a plasma?
EnricM
2.9 / 5 (15) May 06, 2013
her only urgency is getting as much control and money as possible before the house of cards collapses


Yes, makes a lot of sense: Climate scientists wouldn't have any other thing to do if it weren't for climate change. Because climate science has no use at all, as it's well known. Tell me one single practical use for climate science?

Hence,all this guys who have wasted their time studying useless climate science decided to gather together, managed to sideline their respective governments (including the Chinese, Russians, Europeans, etc ), create a worldwide extremely powerful and influential lobby able to alter the policies of all governments in the world... Awesome accomplishment for a few guys who are unable to get a single graphic right.

What I wonder about is why they bother with climate at all. They could directly take over the political power in the world and they wouldn't have to bargain or bother will all these silly idiocy about climates, changes, and stuff...

antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (11) May 06, 2013
Because climate science has no use at all, as it's well known. Tell me one single practical use for climate science?

Warning: sarcasm alert

You may have heard of a smallish industry called: insurance and reinsurance companies

It has a rather inconsequential market (to the tune of about 4.1 trillion(!) US dollars in premiums in 2009 and set to be about 6.1 trillion US dollars by 2015)

All the major insurance calculations (from flood to tsunami to wildfire to hail to lightning to... damage) are based on climate models.

So yeah...climate models do definitely have their uses. Without them insurance premiums would skyrocket. And THAT would affect your daily life massivley - because ALL commodities would suddenly be a LOT more expensive.

And if we don't stop global warming insurance premiums will go up to a level you can't even dream of right now.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (6) May 06, 2013
Hence,all this guys who have wasted their time studying useless climate science

Geeze looser. You sure don't understand science do you? Much less climate science. What is a real waste is your education. So you couldn't get a Republican voucher school?
deepsand
3 / 5 (16) May 07, 2013
Hence,all this guys who have wasted their time studying useless climate science

Geeze looser. You sure don't understand science do you? Much less climate science. What is a real waste is your education. So you couldn't get a Republican voucher school?

I take EnricM's post to be very much tongue-in-cheek.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (11) May 07, 2013
... managed to sideline their respective governments (including the Chinese, Russians, Europeans, etc ), create a worldwide extremely powerful and influential lobby able to alter the policies of all governments in the world...

What I wonder about is why they bother with climate at all. They could directly take over the political power in the world and they wouldn't have to bargain or bother will all these silly idiocy about climates, changes, and stuff...

They managed to fool some of the governments of the world, thus the reason she is still desperately preaching doom and gloom.
It's not just about taking political power, but more about financial greed. Hence, Vicar Gore's carbon exchange that would make him a billionaire. Even the mighty Roman Empire with the military might to dominate the known world had to seek the loyalty of its citizens. The AGW Alarmist must use fear to propagate their agenda as their entire "science" is based on blatant lies. CLIMATEGATE.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (9) May 07, 2013
They managed to fool some of the governments of the world

To what point and purpose would they 'fool a government'. There has to be some ulterior motive.
It isn't money (as the salary of a scientist is fixed - there's not more money in doing a 'hip' type of science over one that is less so. And any scientist can earn triple his salary doing some monkey job in a company, easy)
It isn't the fame (or do you know any famous scientists?)
It isn't the power.

..so what exactly is the reason for this global climate scientist conspiracy?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (11) May 07, 2013
Carbon Exchange / Tax. Heard of those?
Howhot
4.6 / 5 (9) May 07, 2013
His totally awesomeness the @Anti ask;
Carbon Exchange / Tax. Heard of those?
Now what kind of tax are you trying to put on people now anti? Are you trying to tax the world with your pollution so you don't have to pay the clean up costs of saturating the environment with CO2 emissions. Are you so special that you don't have to be concerned with sea level rise, ocean acidification, or even economic collapse and turmoil from climate change.

@Omnishambles says naively;
The sky is not falling down.
I disagree. The climate change will be major and extinction causing.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (15) May 08, 2013
... so what exactly is the reason for this global climate scientist conspiracy?

I doubt that the deluded can adequately explain their condition.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (12) May 08, 2013
... so what exactly is the reason for this global climate scientist conspiracy?

I doubt that the deluded can adequately explain their condition.

It's not a conspiracy, it's more group think gone wild coupled with delusions of grandeur.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (15) May 08, 2013
... so what exactly is the reason for this global climate scientist conspiracy?

I doubt that the deluded can adequately explain their condition.

It's not a conspiracy, it's more group think gone wild coupled with delusions of grandeur.

No doubt the overwhelming majority of scientists who concur re. AGW have delusions of grandeur. :rolleyes:
antigoracle
1 / 5 (11) May 08, 2013
His totally awesomeness the @Anti ask;
Carbon Exchange / Tax. Heard of those?
Are you trying to tax the world with your pollution so you don't have to pay the clean up costs of saturating the environment with CO2 emissions. Are you so special that you don't have to be concerned with sea level rise, ocean acidification, or even economic collapse and turmoil from climate change.

@Omnishambles says naively;
The sky is not falling down.
I disagree. The climate change will be major and extinction causing.
-- deepsand
Your denseness makes you the perfect recruit for the AGW Cult.
Carbon Exchange: What your Vicar Gore hoped would make him a billionaire.
Carbon Tax: This link describes the impact of a real life example. http://www.bccham...tax.html
Extinction causing: Seriously, you need to lay off the Kool-Aid.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) May 08, 2013
I take EnricM's post to be very much tongue-in-cheek.


I agree, definitely sarcasm. I think you misunderstood Howhot.
Howhot
4.6 / 5 (9) May 09, 2013
His holyness Anti the poo-sniffer says;
Your denseness makes you the perfect recruit for the AGW Cult.
Carbon Exchange: What your Vicar Gore hoped would make him a billionaire.
Carbon Tax

What a weak pathetic argument. You have to display your jealousy of my good buddy Al just because he wagged his finger in your face. Too bad then. Instead of trying to reck the world with this stupid anti-warming, pollution loving denialist crap, maybe you should take a break and go snorkel diving. At least there you can see first hand what is happening because of AGW.

By the way, I really meant it about extinction events. Every extinction event has been proceeded by large climate changes. We've jacked CO2 levels almost 43% in less than 200 years from burning fossil fuels with no stopping in sight. Consequences will follow.
Howhot
4.5 / 5 (8) May 09, 2013
I take EnricM's post to be very much tongue-in-cheek.


I agree, definitely sarcasm. I think you misunderstood Howhot.


Sorry. I must have missed it. I stand corrected then.
deepsand
3 / 5 (16) May 09, 2013
I take EnricM's post to be very much tongue-in-cheek.


I agree, definitely sarcasm. I think you misunderstood Howhot.


Sorry. I must have missed it. I stand corrected then.

I had to read it several times before tentatively deciding it was sarcasm. Would be nice if this forum at least had some basic emoticons for handle such .
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (14) May 09, 2013
His totally awesomeness the @Anti ask;
Carbon Exchange / Tax. Heard of those?
Are you trying to tax the world with your pollution so you don't have to pay the clean up costs of saturating the environment with CO2 emissions. Are you so special that you don't have to be concerned with sea level rise, ocean acidification, or even economic collapse and turmoil from climate change.

@Omnishambles says naively;
The sky is not falling down.
I disagree. The climate change will be major and extinction causing.
-- deepsand
Your denseness makes you the perfect recruit for the AGW Cult.

Not our fault that Nature gave you froth for brains, rather than high density grey matter.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (10) May 09, 2013
Not our fault that Nature gave you froth for brains, rather than high density grey matter.

Such a waste of grey matter.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (12) May 09, 2013
You have to display your jealousy of my good buddy Al .....
Every extinction event has been proceeded by large climate changes. We've jacked CO2 levels almost 43% in less than 200 years from burning fossil fuels with no stopping in sight. Consequences will follow.

Because Al took a dump that resulted in you, does not make you good buddies. It makes you a Turd rejected by his body.
Extinction events eh. Send me the contact information for the institution holding you, your doctors need to up your dosage.
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (8) May 09, 2013
The mighty @Anti whose odoriferous intellect sprays the room with the foreboding stench of a Mayan animal sacrifice says;
Al took a dump that resulted in you, does not make you good buddies.
;

How do you know? I may have had a beer with Al once or twice. That doesn't matter anyway. It's the content of his message that you object to. And because of that, you are totally and completely naive. You have either bought into the climate change propaganda and were not provided with proper facts, or your just a paid stooge.

Which is dude? A mindless one or a stooge?

Bottom line; Anti who's presents wafts like bacon in a coal fire, Al-Gore is just the spokesman for the majority of us who care. He didn't create the hockeystick. The hockeystick is just fact. Get over it.
deepsand
2.5 / 5 (13) May 10, 2013
Not our fault that Nature gave you froth for brains, rather than high density grey matter.

Such a waste of grey matter.

Unlike you, I don't have to husband my grey matter.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (14) May 10, 2013
Send me the contact information for the institution holding you, your doctors need to up your dosage.

Can't fool us. What you're really looking for is another source for your badly needed medications.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (11) May 11, 2013
Not our fault that Nature gave you froth for brains, rather than high density grey matter.

Such a waste of grey matter.

Unlike you, I don't have to husband my grey matter.
-- deepsandTurd
Uh huh. As your posts will confirm, you're just oozing the stuff i.e. Turd Stools
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (14) May 11, 2013
Not our fault that Nature gave you froth for brains, rather than high density grey matter.

Such a waste of grey matter.

Unlike you, I don't have to husband my grey matter.
-- deepsandTurd
Uh huh. As your posts will confirm, you're just oozing the stuff i.e. Turd Stools

You really do need to learn to stop projecting.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (11) May 17, 2013
Not our fault that Nature gave you froth for brains, rather than high density grey matter.

Such a waste of grey matter.

Unlike you, I don't have to husband my grey matter.
-- deepsandTurd
Uh huh. As your posts will confirm, you're just oozing the stuff i.e. Turd Stools

You really do need to learn to stop projecting.

You really need to stay at the bottom of your cesspool of ignorance, instead of surfacing and confirming just how stupid you are.
deepsand
2.5 / 5 (13) May 17, 2013
Wherein AO again demonstrates his inability to offer anything of substance, his being capable of engaging in no more than argumentum ad hominem.
Neinsense99
3 / 5 (10) May 20, 2013
Climate change science is a war crime!


You should have stopped there at the plainly absurd before delving into the obviously ridiculous.
Neinsense99
3 / 5 (10) May 20, 2013
The idea of LASERs going through clouds and considering the laser light to be plasma just makes it clear he does not understand that a laser beam is light.


Wow, just wow! If you don't understand that a laser beam ionizes the medium it travels through, there is little hope you can even understand the most basic aspects of science. Does your mom still spoon feed you? Talk about STOOPID!


I take EnricM's post to be very much tongue-in-cheek.


I agree, definitely sarcasm. I think you misunderstood Howhot.


Sorry. I must have missed it. I stand corrected then.

Then you are far ahead of anti cantdrive and the like, who are incapable of that much intellectual honesty.
Neinsense99
3 / 5 (10) May 20, 2013
Not our fault that Nature gave you froth for brains, rather than high density grey matter.

Such a waste of grey matter.


Comment or admission?
JaniceNichols
5 / 5 (5) May 23, 2013
The overall health of the planet is deteriorating. Our lakes, oceans, air, and soil are also being polluted. There are many factors that are involved in Climate Change. I think that might be why some people find it hard to accept it.