The Paris climate agreement is now well and truly dead- Debate: Outcome of COP 22 in Marrakesh

Posted on November 23, 2016 by rogeroffice
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to The Paris climate agreement is now well and truly dead- Debate: Outcome of COP 22 in Marrakesh

  1. Ex-expat Colin says:
    November 23, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    Marano wasn’t welcome….armed UN security saw to that. As expected, freedom of speech in such places is rather limited. Wailing about where your free money is to come from is something most acceptable of course. Might be harder to get shortly..tut, tut!

    Vids here:
    http://www.therebel.media/preview_marc_morano_shreds_paris_climate_agreement_at_cop22

    Reply
  2. Simon Blanchard says:
    November 23, 2016 at 2:46 pm

    The Paris “Climate Change” agreement is well and truly dead, says Roger Helmer. However don’t be too complacent these “Climate Change” Zombies have an inclination to rise up from the dead and not give up their ideology. All they have done is agree to postpone this agreement until after Trump’s presidency.

    Reply
    • CheshireRed says:
      November 23, 2016 at 3:23 pm

      And hang around for 4-8 years without funding? Rather them than me. Trump can (and should) drive a stake through the heart of this vampire-like scam once and for all. It will be beautiful.

      Reply
  3. catalanbrian says:
    November 23, 2016 at 3:40 pm

    RH in uber smug mode.

    Reply
  4. Ex-expat Colin says:
    November 23, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    First time I’ve come across this stuff: “Climate Models are Good Quality Software (?!)”

    http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2010/04/climate-models-are-good-quality-software/

    In fact I have never seen any info on the topic before and it links to all sorts of sub topics on software projects with special “species”….GCM’s. The Met Office gets a high class tick in the box for refined development processes…naturally. Thats for a weather forecast or two and a software driven guess into the future.

    Seems scientist don’t like Software Eng processes which are driven by Standards. I know that having worked for the UK MoD, but at some point you had better consistently do it! Liking is not on the wish list. So outside of the Met Office it appears to be special species of Fortran knife and forking. All sorts of metrics may or may not be relevant. Seems some of this functional software cannot be tested until integrated with other bits and pieces…sounding scruffy?

    There is some talk that the above comment type comes from those who know software well but don’t understand the functionality the software implements. Smart-ish remark until an ISA is sitting at your work station and alarmingly interested in the functionality you created. ISA = Independent Software/Systems Assessor.

    Reply
    • Ex-expat Colin says:
      November 23, 2016 at 3:53 pm

      The above GCM stuff kicked off from WUWT today…the end of vid Q&A is mucho enlightening:

      Those damned errors!

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/22/the-needle-in-the-haystack-pat-franks-devastating-expose-of-climate-model-error/

      Reply
      • catweazle666 says:
        November 23, 2016 at 4:34 pm

        For a much more in-depth discussion of non-linear systems, go over to Judith Curry’s blog and search for posts by Kip Hansen, who recently authored a series on the subject, including a particularly enlightening one on sensitivity to initial conditions.

        https://judithcurry.com/

    • catweazle666 says:
      November 23, 2016 at 4:29 pm

      Computer games models based on physical processes such as radiative physics, thermodynamics and Navier-Stokes equations are not capable of predicting future climate.

      “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

      IPCC Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Third Assessment Report (TAR), Chapter 14 (final para., 14.2.2.2), p774.

      Anyone who claims that a purported computer game climate simulation of an effectively infinitely large open-ended non-linear feedback-driven (where we don’t know all the feedbacks, and even the ones we do know, we are unsure of the signs of some critical ones) chaotic system – hence subject to inter alia extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, strange attractors and bifurcation – is capable of making meaningful predictions over any significant time period is either a charlatan or a computer salesman.

      Ironically, the first person to point this out was Edward Lorenz – a climate scientist.

      Lorenz’s early insights marked the beginning of a new field of study that impacted not just the field of mathematics but virtually every branch of science–biological, physical and social. In meteorology, it led to the conclusion that it may be fundamentally impossible to predict weather beyond two or three weeks with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

      Some scientists have since asserted that the 20th century will be remembered for three scientific revolutions–relativity, quantum mechanics and chaos.

      http://news.mit.edu/2008/obit-lorenz-0416

      You can add as much computing power as you like, the result is purely to produce the wrong answer faster. But for some climate “scientists” I suppose it pays the mortgage…

      Reply
      • Ex-expat Colin says:
        November 24, 2016 at 11:05 am

        It fuels this kind of stuff: (WUWT)

        Which fuelled something worse perhaps:

        The EPA has developed into a formidable behemoth:
        “… Since 2006, the EPA Criminal Enforcement Program spent approximately $715 million fighting ‘enviro-crime.’ With 200 Special Agents, the EPA also spent millions of dollars on military-style weaponry … for example: $2.1 million purchased guns and ammo up to 300MM – the majority of these expenditures were on weapons “up to 30MM” ($1.73 million).
        Other checkbook entries included body armor, camouflage and deceptive equipment, unmanned aircraft, night vision, radar equipment, tactical sets, kits, and outfits …”.

        There was a link to this at forbes…but I won’t stop my adblocker.

Leave a Reply to CheshireRed Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s