http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_hcz0NwtU7Q#t=0s
Great video, this climate delegate says the reason it so abnormally cold outside is because of Global Warming. She is a TRUE BELIEVER in the man-made Global Warming Religion, she is a full fledged Climate-Cult member and as deluded as anyone can be. And what's really sad is you can tell she is confused by her own words, but she really, really wants to believe that what she is saying is true.
Of course her well paying job undoubtedly depends on her not losing FAITH.
Great laugh !
-----------------------
Regarding your "raised our temperatures by about 0.8C and maybe a doubling of CO2 will raise it another 0.01C" comment, the moment you can demonstrate the bare minimums required to read and understand one of the earlier seminal papers on climate which almost agrees with you (Rasool & Schneider, 1971, Science, Vol 173, and 4 pages long is all), I think your "predictions" will be ignored as vacuous.
If you need a copy of the paper and tell me you are willing to spend some time reading it, just ask. I'll quote one part of their paper that "almost agrees" with you, as I wrote above:
? ? ? ? "a doubling of CO? produces a tropospheric temperature change of 0.8°K.
? ? ? ? ?However, as more CO? is added to the atmosphere, the rate of temperature
? ? ? ? ?increase is proportionally less and less, and the increase eventually levels
? ? ? ? ?off. Even for an increase in CO? by a factor of 10, the temperature increase
? ? ? ? ?does not exceed 2.5°K. Therefore, the runaway greenhouse effect does not
? ? ? ? ?occur because the 15-μm CO? band, which is the main source of absorption,
? ? ? ? ?'saturates,' and the addition of more CO? does not substantially increase
? ? ? ? ?the infrared opacity of the atmosphere."
This paper was peer-reviewed and published in one of the higher rated ISI/JCR journals. It's old, though, and not only were several fatal flaws pointed out quite soon by others, more were added to the paper by the authors themselves. Within a year, the paper was demolished on its conclusions about CO? increases and became historical, except for the introduction of aerosols. But it remains a very important paper to read because it provides an early segue for anyone studying the subject and provides, once you see the flaws in it, very good lessons to learn as well. It also brought with it a serious discussion of aerosols by climate scientists, which at the time was much in need. The paper advanced climate science, both through debate of its points and bringing back in aerosols. It remains a good start for anyone just beginning their path on this topic.
If you can read the paper with understanding and can actually debate its methods and conclusions with me from a perspective that demonstrates any modest mastery of it, I will not only concede your skills publicly but sincerely forfeit my right to disdain your skills. It's NOT a hard paper so it should be easily understood with only modest math and science knowledge.
EDIT: The paper can be found at the 1st link noted below: Yes, you are totally wrong about the "miniscule" and the "0.01C" parts of your comments. But you will need to learn about simple slab models of the atmosphere, pressure broadening, mean free path, thermalization, and so on. I can refer you to a decent, free course you can take over the web (videos of classroom teaching, with tests on the topics) designed for non-scientists wanting to learn about these subjects, though. I think if you and I were to discuss the details in that course as you proceed through it, here, we'd all gain a lot from the process. Even with that, you still couldn't challenge climate science result. They deal with so much more, including complex feedback systems that respond and either contribute or retard effects. And those are linked still further. Besides, I'm sure there remains much yet to learn, as well. Which is why we don't really know the exact climate sensitivity figure for a doubling ... but we do have some likely error bounds.
Everything in science is about probability and uncertainty. Nobel Laureate David Gross states (in the 2nd link below):
? ? ? ? "The public generally equates uncertainty with a wild guess. Whereas,
? ? ? ? ?for a scientist, a theory like the Standard Model is incredibly precise
? ? ? ? ?and probabilistic. In science, it is essential never to be totally certain.
? ? ? ? ?And that lesson is hammered into every scientist and reader of history.
? ? ? ? ?Scientists measure uncertainty using probability theory and statistics.
? ? ? ? ?And we have comfort zones when making predictions, error bars. Living
? ? ? ? ?with uncertainty is an essential part of science, and it is easily
? ? ? ? ?misunderstood."
The lady is an idiot! It's not summer. Still Spring until June 21.
There's a concentrated effort to look at the Gulf Stream and it slowing. It's hard to read the history of the Gulf Stream. It does affect the climate of Great Britain greatly because that is where it flows towards. there's a lot of documentation of how the Thames River was icy in the past.
I doubt that there is an anthropogenic connection to ocean currents just as I doubt there is an anthropogenic cause to the Arctic going through its stages and transformations.
------------------------------------
P.S. Global Warming is about warming. Climate Change is only an easy way out for alarmists 'just in case' the warming doesn't continue.
So, you're getting your climate science information now from a diplomat from the Cook Islands? Where do you get your information on quantum electrodynamics, from the ambassador to Nauru?
EDIT for Moe: You've been here for quite a while, but I don't think you've been paying much attention. I don't give many pats on the head to people spreading scientific misinformation, no matter how they feel about AGW.
EDIT for your additional details: I don't know how things go in the Phillipines Kano, but here in the U.S. the control and influence over our lives by a Cook Islands delegate is next to nothing.
However, that does not mean that there are not plenty of ignorant people that do. There certainly are hundreds of people in the U.S. Congress that don't have a clue when they're talking about global warming and climate change. Some people, like James Inhofe of Oklahoma, base their CAREERS on being scientifically stupid and appealing to stupid people. I'd love for everyone to be mathematically and scientifically literate, but as a practical matter that's impossible. Barring that, people should REALIZE if they're not good at science and defer to the scientists. I suspect this delegate is like that--a better question might be who this organization CFACT is and why they think it's at all relevant to consult an obscure delegate about climate.
Only birth control can prevent the biggest looming disaster in the history of human habitation on this planet
Don't FOOL with Mother Nature!
Nice move Kano, you like to make fun of people when they say something silly, while you yourself claim that AGW can not happen because CO2 is plant food?
Of course it does not but the important thing for warmonist like peg is he can call you stupid for pointing out ignorance while patting the ignorant on the head and smiling in agreement.
Peg, she is not a climate scientist for sure so where do you think her view comes from? Besides possibly a better education the difference between you and her is a lack of conviction.
longer and colder winters,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_hcz0NwtU7Q#t=0s
