# Global Warming's No Longer Happening



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sounds 'bout right to me . . .

*So why are eco types moaning about record highs while ignoring record lows?*

*“Global warming is not only no longer happening, it is not likely to resume until 2025 or later, if then. So why are we continuing to hear so much doomsaying about climate change?

There are a lot of people in every age who think they know better than everyone else and, therefore, have a right to tell everyone how to live. In the 1950s, it was country-club and parish council busybodies with their strict moral codes. In the 1970s, it was social democrats with their fanciful economic theories. Today, it's environmentalists.

Same instinct, different wrapper.”*

That quote fits many on this board to a tee! 



> So far this month, at least 14 major weather stations in Alberta have recorded their lowest-ever March temperatures. I'm not talking about daily records; I mean they've recorded the lowest temperatures they've ever seen in the entire month of March since temperatures began being recorded in Alberta in the 1880s.
> 
> This past Tuesday, Edmonton International Airport reported an overnight low of -41.5 C, smashing the previous March low of -29.4 C set in 1975. Records just don't fall by that much, but the airport's did. Records are usually broken fractions of degrees. The International's was exceeded by 12 degrees.
> 
> ...


http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Global+warming+longer+happening/1391903/story.html


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Looks like MacDoc just got kicked in the albedo again...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

something bout, hmmm. What was it, extreme temperatures, or.... hmmm. Something about that or something.

Can't. Quite remember.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

no, groovetube, that was fallback position number one--that the overall temperature of the world would be increasing, but extreme cold temperature events might occur.

Falback position number two--when the average world temperature begins to cool and does so consistently for a decade, we'll just change the name of the phenomenon to "global climate change" and attribute all temperature fluctuations to it.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

It's a big world SINC.

Perhaps, Edmonton Warming is no longer happening. But,

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | China declares drought emergency

BBC NEWS | Americas | Drought sucks life from Argentina's farms



> The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the most active Atlantic hurricane season in recorded history, with a record 27 named storms, of which 15 became hurricanes. Seven of the hurricanes strengthened into major storms, five became Category 4 hurricanes and a record four reached Category 5 strength.


I could go on. The general trend is warming and this is causing extreme and erratic weather behaviour. From Greenpeace:



> Extreme weather of this kind is predicted to become more common as climate change accelerates with continued warming [1]. In fact some climate scientists are suggesting that the extremes already happening suggest that climate change will be quicker and more severe than previously expected.



So indeed this description would be characteristic of climate change:



> So far this month, at least 14 major weather stations in Alberta have recorded their lowest-ever March temperatures. I'm not talking about daily records; I mean they've recorded the lowest temperatures they've ever seen in the entire month of March since temperatures began being recorded in Alberta in the 1880s.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I guess you're too young to have ever heard of the dirty 30s, Adrian.?

Droughts are not uncommon in the natural cycle of the earth.

Nor are changing weather patterns. Or whatever you choose to label those patterns.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the most active Atlantic hurricane season in recorded history, with a record 27 named storms, of which 15 became hurricanes.


When you measure in total hurricane energy--the only way of comparing total severity from year to year, you get this graph: 2005 wasn't nearly as bad as 1994 and about the same as 1999. Since them, it's taken a nosedive.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"So far this month, at least 14 major weather stations in Alberta have recorded their lowest-ever March temperatures. I'm not talking about daily records; I mean they've recorded the lowest temperatures they've ever seen in the entire month of March since temperatures began being recorded in Alberta in the 1880s." Same here. However, it is being blamed on the domes of cold air over the prairies which is causing the Jet Stream to dip below St.John's, causing our cold temps. This dome of cold air is being caused by global warming, as is our lack of Spring weather even as late as June, due to the melting ice in Greenland which is sending thousands of icebergs of all sizes past NL. This too is a direct result of global warming.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

This should give you a pretty good idea how worried Al Gore is about his own carbon footprint. Living in a pleasantly warm part of the country he consumes 20x the national residential average. My home uses less than 1/30th of Al Gores and is located in a cold and windy part of the world. On top of that we use electric hot water and even some supplemental electric heat. 

Google Image Result for http://www.m4gw.com:2005/m4gw/al-gores-house1.gif


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> no, groovetube, that was fallback position number one--that the overall temperature of the world would be increasing, but extreme cold temperature events might occur.
> 
> Falback position number two--when the average world temperature begins to cool and does so consistently for a decade, we'll just change the name of the phenomenon to "global climate change" and attribute all temperature fluctuations to it.


right.

Number 3 was god farted so the pole's ice started melting.

I find this one the most plausible.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Number 3 was god farted


Sounds about as good as most of the stuff I hear coming from the IPCC.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Sounds about as good as most of the stuff I hear coming from the IPCC.


that makes even less sense than what I posted. I didn't think it possible.

I was wrong!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

No, I think you win.


----------



## Polygon (Feb 6, 2009)

I'm surprised that these type of stories are still getting press, much less an audience. A single year of data is not good enough to reinforce or disprove global warming. Global warming is a climate theory that predicts the steady rising of global temperatures over the span of years and decades, not a single winter.

When environmentalists get all worked up about record heat-waves, the detractors are quick tell the world to hush, and that a single year of data isn't enough to prove anything. The same is true when you're looking at record lows.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Right, polygon, except that high temperatures in any given year _are_ frequently used as evidence for global warming, even by scientists. Much of the recent nonsense was based on a steadily rising global temperatures on a year-by-year-basis, something SINC points out is not even possible this year.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

All of this hype will be swept under the mat for a few reasons: it is predicted that solar activity will decline with the decrease in sunspot counts that may bring us into another Maunder Minimum; solar energy received has declined by upwards of 5%, meaning that we are receiving 5% less light, because of a decline in solar activity as well as light being blocked by pollution; we have been experiencing much less volcanic activity than is the "average", so as this swings back, mor ejecta will be thrown into the atmosphere, and thus, lead to greater cooling; and we are entering a long term cycle of cooling in the Atlantic Ocean, which will see to a decline in temperatures on the eastern seaboard and in Europe.

People were all hyped about warming - but we are going to have some cooling going on in the years to come, especially if our solar maximums are duds, like in the 16th century.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sure and pigs will be sure to












> *M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C*
> 
> The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Climate Change has joined the climate realists. The realists are the growing group of scientists who understand that the business as usual emissions path leads to unmitigated catastrophe
> (see, for instance, “Hadley Center: “Catastrophic” 5-7°C warming by 2100 on current emissions path” and below).
> ...


more
Climate Progress Blog Archive M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C

But you know better of course....

Learn something
Arctic Report Card

..oh BTW El Nino lurks just off the horizon......say this fall.....


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Some people will not be convinced until it is too late to do anything (it probably already is). It's easy to deny science because scientists rely on facts and probabilities and no scientist worth her salt is going to make an absolute claim. That's why we still have a "debate" over intelligent design vs evolution. Even though evolution is based on facts and scientific evidence (whereas ID is implicitly not provable and therefore has to do no work to make its case), evolution is and will remain a theory.

It's easy to pick a side that you "believe" in but its much more difficult to keep an open mind. For those people who continue to deny that the earth is in a warming trend due to human activity, don't worry, the really negative consequences won't hit for at least 25 years - so party on.....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Jim makes a valid point, supported by a diverse view of both scientific knowledge and common sense. Sadly, we might not have 25 years to "party on". We shall see.

World faces 'irreversible' climate change, researchers warn - CNN.com


----------



## Polygon (Feb 6, 2009)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Some people will not be convinced until it is too late to do anything (it probably already is). It's easy to deny science because scientists rely on facts and probabilities and no scientist worth her salt is going to make an absolute claim. That's why we still have a "debate" over intelligent design vs evolution. Even though evolution is based on facts and scientific evidence (whereas ID is implicitly not provable and therefore has to do no work to make its case), evolution is and will remain a theory.
> 
> It's easy to pick a side that you "believe" in but its much more difficult to keep an open mind. For those people who continue to deny that the earth is in a warming trend due to human activity, don't worry, the really negative consequences won't hit for at least 25 years - so party on.....


Let's not lump climate change into the same boat as evolution. Those who believe in global warming and those who don't both have science on their side. Whether humanity is responsible for this or whether its just part of a natural cycle is something that we would need an unspoilt "control" Earth to know for certain, despite strong evidence pointing to humanity. Even if we weren't worried about global warming, we should still be worried about other side-effects of pollution, such as the quality of air you breath to stay alive.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Polygon, I see you're new here, so I will take the liberty of informing you that arguing with SINC and Macfury about Climate Change is about as futile as trying to fly.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Polygon said:


> Let's not lump climate change into the same boat as evolution. Those who believe in global warming and those who don't both have science on their side. Whether humanity is responsible for this or whether its just part of a natural cycle is something that we would need an unspoilt "control" Earth to know for certain, despite strong evidence pointing to humanity. Even if we weren't worried about global warming, we should still be worried about other side-effects of pollution, such as the quality of air you breath to stay alive.


Many of us that do not buy into the man caused climatic disaster fear syndrome, MCCDFS for short, believe that every effort should be made to eliminate the poisons man is pouring into the environment. 

CO2 is not a poison and concentrating on CO2 while ignoring poisons, will help to line Al Gore's wallet, but will do nothing about the far more serious issue of man poisoning his nest.

Let's put our efforts and money where they will be most effective. For a start we need to find a way to recover all of the Mercury and Phosphors in all those CFBs that are replacing the much more benign incandescent light bulbs.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> Climate Progress Blog Archive M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C


I see MacDoc is throwing in with the left-wing of the climate change debate. That crew wets itself every time the sun pops up from behind a cloud.

I agree with eMacMan. Global warming alarm is all about income redistribution--and pigs like Al Gore with their snouts at the trough, looking for their share. Let's deal with some real pollutants instead.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Like I have always said, I try every day to reduce my carbon footprint because I believe it is the proper thing to do for the environment.

But I will be God damned if I will bow to those who use science and scare tactics to make a profit. And those that believe those who use such tactics are just plain "wowed" by the snake oil salesmen.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hubris comes to mind......  

Nobody listens to the real climate change experts - Telegraph

These guys are sooooo desperate...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Hubris comes to mind......


King Canute comes to my mind, telling the world to become cooler just by legislating it so.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)




----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Are people really as stupid as this thread would lead me to believe?

"Global warming" refers to the temperature of the EARTH (land, oceans) not the temperature of the AIR. Hello. Even a third-grader knows this.

Climate change refers to the RESULT of global warming: changes in weather patterns.

Some places will get unusual amounts of cold; some places will get unusual amounts of heat. Extreme weather (hurricanes, blizzards) will get more extreme. It snowed in New Orleans this year. Victoria had two solid weeks of snow. Neither of these things is UNHEARD of, but they appear to be coming around more frequently. That's odd. When I look for an explanation of what's going on, who am I supposed to believe: the NOAA and the rest of the scientific community, or some looney-tunes pundit on my teevee?

Nobody who's sounding the alarm about this is denying that the earth itself goes through cycles; we've had ice ages (and might again, but only if we stop global warming!), volcanoes shoot tonnes of ash in the sky and cover the earth in a carbon suit; the magnetic field is going to reverse again someday, completely screwing all our fancy technology (and probably kill us all in the process). The earth itself (or a passing comet) might kill us all someday. Nobody's denying that.

But pretending something odd isn't going on, or saying something profoundly dumb like "it's cold today, so this global warming is a hoax!" is like saying that you've never seen snow, therefore it doesn't exist.

Even more ironically, the biggest "hoax believers" are often fundamentalists -- they can believe in an invisible man who lives in the clouds, comes to earth as a baby via a virgin, has himself killed to make a point, resurrects himself to make another point, and will come back someday, which will cause at least 1/3rd of all the people in the world to be killed -- but he LOVES US! But these same people can't believe that pollution is causing meta-changes in the environment are happening because it's not obvious right outside their window??

What the scientists are saying is that the Earth operates within a "bell curve" of temperatures, most of which are survivable by humankind. But tampering with the bell curve (as we are doing) may push it beyond the survivability level. For a practical example of how this is true, take a lake that has fish in it. It had fish in it before people started fishing, and it has fish in it after people start fishing. But if the lake dries up on its own, there won't be any fish. Or if people OVER-fish, it will eventually have no fish in it.

Not really that hard to understand, is it?

If you're over 50, there's no reason for you to give a **** about this (and I notice most of the deniers are on the plus side of that range), since you'll be dead long before the bell curve gets pushed to the point that it's unsurvivable, or in some cases just uncomfortable; a sharp rise in ocean levels due to melting ice caps will cause land to disappear, causing real estate to go up, less food to eat and more overcrowding -- it's not the end of the world, but it doesn't sound like fun.

So I say, if you're 50 or over, just live like SINC, who sets a good example IMO. Believe the evidence, or don't, doesn't matter in your case. Doubt might be a negative energy, but it's healthy in moderation. Just respect the environment and cut down on your paper, your carbon, your waste. Recycle because you want cleaner water and fresher air NOW or for your kids, and stop worrying about what will happen by the year 2070. You won't be around anyway, and thus it (like the debt) will be their problem. They'll either cope with it -- or they won't survive.

You can't get any more "natural" than that.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Chas_M has a pretty decent post there. Way to much common sense, but then again nothing's perfect.

The Earth is changing, as it always has done, and always will. Hotter, Cooler, more C02, less CO2. The part where humans thrive is pretty wide and tolerates a lot of weather due to our stubbornness and occasionally being clever. My ancestors walked from France to England, didn't get their feet wet, and not that long ago either, that kind of thing.

Is man affecting it? Only a fool would say he is not. There is no dispute there from anyone.

Then there is this quantum leap from there, to what is implied by most, if not all, of what I hear. That we can stop Global Warming, because we caused Global Warming, so it's obviously with out clever and stubborn nature, we could pull it off if we just try.

Global Warming, if that's what you want to call, is a politically charged word which now means something instead of what the Earth's geology and climate actually is. For some, it's taken on the aura and the power of a religion. We don't have to go into how difficult that can be, but I think we all agree that religious conviction can sometimes stand for the only reason to have and defend a position.

Chas_m has it nailed. The phrase "Global Warming" encompasses something so huge, a super-chaotic weather system that never repeats itself, whose attempts to heat or cool the Earth can be seen as laughably pathetic, fighting a CO2 storage system that encompasses the majority of the surface weight of the planet, until you give it a few hundred years, and then ... well look at that ... 

But the implication I hear in ordinary people, fed by the loudest, least informed voices in the media, that is if we just get everyone to do their part, we can stop Global Warming. I actually look for the phrase "stop Global Warning" as it's a perfect, 100% accurate bull**** meter. Let me put this as clearly as I can:

There will be no stopping of the Global Warming.

We can stop rushing the beast, but to be honest, history says it resists change and moves very slowly for hundreds of years, then changes abruptly in 20 to 50 years, and then hangs at the new equilibrium for hundreds, or thousands, of years. We currently are cooler than what the Earth has usually stabilized at it's warmer point, and we know this from human recorded history. In other words, not that long ago either.

I think we know which part of the graph we're at, and if that's true, there ain't a damn thing we can do about it.

The long term data also shows that if we weren't around, it was on track to do exactly what it's doing now, only it was supposed to take 200 years longer, and make a move in 2212 instead.

A Warmer planet is a change, and it will be catastrophic for some and an opportunity for others, whether for people or the Earth's biodiversity. Change is also nature's relentless and determined constant.

She seems indifferent to "Good" and "Bad". Christians give her a huge break by blaming the sinners in the village for bringing the wrath of God when it was Mama Nature just being herself, but whatever. That won't change either. Some might not make it to the other side ( mmm .... Ice Age .... ).

Now, go back and recycle, reuse, reduce, compost, walk, and all the other good things we can do to the planet. Don't let polluters get away with it. Avoid fads. I'm going on record here and publicly stating that I'm for bringing back the Death Penalty for littering. That ought to be a good start, anyway.

There is nothing incongrous with not buying the Global Warming hype and still taking care of the planet as it should be taken care of. The Planet is fine ... it's the people that are the problem. Living, breathing, humans, every one of them, are hard on the planet; get rid of us and, well, nobody would write about it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That's far too much a ticket for business as usual Gord.....climate be damned there are other critical reasons for going carbon neutral.

Limiting CO2 to 450 ppm ( not likely but maybe ) limits the rate of change and the subsequent impact.

650 ppm- likely - has a high degree of risk to about 1/10th of the population over the next century..and will devastating on agriculture and species unable to shift zones.

881 ppm as MIT projects with business as usual - is truly catastrophic putting the temperatures into ranges not seen in millions of years within a century.

So indeed, since carbon is forever in human terms global energy gain will continue ( it IS possible to reverse but the scale of engineering is daunting to say the least ).

Getting to carbon neutral - ignoring climate entirely - is critical both for oceans.....in severe danger already..
www.ocean-acidification.net Monaco Declaration out this year....

... and the fossil stuff will run out eventually so doing it now makes all sorts of sense - and China must change and is changing or suffocate.
They will make good money getting carbon neutral tech sold around the world.

We could too if gov gets collect heads out of collective asses and gets our nuclear program on the front burner. Candus are very flexible for fuel including thorium.

Sweden and Norway ( hard for them with the oil industry ) are looking at carbon neutral between 2030 and 2050...we could be a well


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> They will make good money getting carbon neutral tech sold around the world.
> 
> Sweden and Norway ( hard for them with the oil industry ) are looking at carbon neutral between 2030 and 2050...we could be a well


You see what I mean? It's all about the money.

And I could give a rat's patootie about Norway and I'm sick of hearing about it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

This is one reason it's not going to stop anytime soon....

The frustrating part is the feedbacks are now getting so massive that the human kickoff is dwarfed.....

Boreal Forest changes alone.....warmer = beetles overwintering = going from net carbon sink to net carbon emitter...



> Canada's carbon sink has sprung a leak
> [HILITE]Vast forests used to vacuum up carbon dioxide, but recently that process has been thrown in reverse[/HILITE]
> By Mark Clayton
> 
> 2009-03-14 12:33 AM


Canada's carbon sink has sprung a leak - Taiwan News Online

Is that human engendered.......of course we set off the ****ing avalanche of change

Is it a "natural consequence" of course

You can imagine how that gets "spun" ........

•••
Norway????
too bad - ashamed of your support for pissing into the community pool......???


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... That's far too much a ticket for business as usual Gord.....climate be damned there are other critical reasons for going carbon neutral. ..."

MacDoc, coming from you that is really weak. Normally you take the time to read stuff. I never said Business As Usual and I've always advocated good stewardship of the planet. I just don't like Grape.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Where in there once did you support efforts for strong effort in cutting of carbon emissions to carbon neutral ....

Are you saying you support that .......??

Let's hear it....."good stewardship" is far too warm and fuzzy....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Now you've done it gordguide! You've enraged Oz the great and powerful by failing to use the buzzwords of his religion. 

You will now fry...


You're all going to fry....


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Yeah, me and my 60 Watt MacBook against the great 8-core. Typing the same words, but with a different (carbon) weight.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

gordguide: Don't forget that MacDoc tore a strip out of the environmentally sensitive Niagara Escarpment and established his place on the earth in a nice low-density subdivision that relies almost totally on car transportation.

Part of this performance is clawing at his own hair shirt.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

gordguide said:


> Yeah, me and my 60 Watt MacBook against the great 8-core. Typing the same words, but with a different (carbon) weight.


Nicely done!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

gordguide said:


> Yeah, me and my 60 Watt MacBook against the great 8-core. Typing the same words, but with a different (carbon) weight.


Like many great environmentalists, MacDoc is exempt from the rules, since he is merely experimenting with these computers to help YOU reduce your carbon footprint.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Like many great environmentalists, MacDoc is exempt from the rules, since he is merely experimenting with these computers to help YOU reduce your carbon footprint.


Kind of like Suzuki preaching of the perils of overpopulation while siring 5 (!) children.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, y'see chasMac, Suzuki says he has a special ability to teach his monstrous brood to be sensitive to the environment.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Well, y'see chasMac, Suzuki says he has a special ability to teach his monstrous brood to be sensitive to the environment.


Hmmm. While the five of them may be carbon neutral (though it's doubtful), that is generally not what concerns 'overpopulationists'. But maybe he's gotten off of that train.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chasMac said:


> Hmmm. While the five of them may be carbon neutral (though it's doubtful), that is generally not what concerns 'overpopulationists'. But maybe he's gotten off of that train.


Nope, he's not off that train, he's just given himself absolution. How dare you tell HIM what to do?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Y'all might want to look up the definition of Ad hominem.

Regardless of what Al Gore, David Suzuki, or MacDoc do, or what you might think of them as people, you should counter their _arguments_.

I agree that espousing population control while having 5 kids is hypocritical. But that doesn't have any bearing on wether or not population control is a good idea. It obviously is.

As for the global warming issue. I'd be ecstatic if the scientific consensus on this turns out to be wrong. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that we seriously misinterpreted the data. But one, or even 5 years of cooling wouldn't change the trend. And, as I keep trying to point out, the precautionary principle dictates that we take this threat seriously and do everything we can to counter it. If it turns out not to be a real threat, well that's great. We may have shifted our economy onto a sustainable foundation a few decades sooner than we had to. 

But make no mistake, the laws of thermodynamics say we have to change our economy because it is not sustainable. We burn way more calories than photosynthesis harvests every year so we are running a deficit. We inherited a planet loaded with lots of reduced carbon, and we've oxidized most of it in a very short period of time. But when it runs out, there are no banks to get a loan from while we adjust our economy to run on sustainable energy sources. The science behind this is clear and unarguable.

The climate change issue may be the trigger for this necessary change, and I'm hoping it is. Even if it turns out, a hundred years from now, that the change was not as great as we feared it would be, or that we had nothing to do with triggering it, if, like the smoker who quits because they think they've got cancer but it turns out to be a mis-diagnosis, global climate change triggers a change for the better in human behavior, I'll be happy with that.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

David Suzuki defined:


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Y'all might want to look up the definition of Ad hominem.
> 
> Regardless of what Al Gore, David Suzuki, or MacDoc do, or what you might think of them as people, you should counter their _arguments_.


While in principle I agree with this, I think it is human nature to find it difficult to take seriously people who *do not walk their talk*, as the expression goes. 

One naturally assumes that if someone actually believes in what they are saying, then they will conduct their own life accordingly. 

Example is a far stronger _argument_ than preaching. 

What we have with Suzuki and others is akin to the fundamentalist preacher getting caught with the underage same-sex hooker.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> If it turns out not to be a real threat, well that's great. We may have shifted our economy onto a sustainable foundation a few decades sooner than we had to.


If it turns out to not to be a real threat, we will have: 
1) wasted trillions of dollars on a canard to achieve an energy infrastructure that wrongly demonizes carbon dioxide.
2) send billions of dollars overseas to buy worthless carbon credits.

Certainly not a trice.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> If it turns out to not to be a real threat, we will have:
> 1) wasted trillions of dollars on a canard to achieve an energy infrastructure that wrongly demonizes carbon dioxide.
> 2) sen billions of dollars overseas to buy worthless carbon credits.
> 
> Certainly not a trice.


I believe the way Carbon credits work is that Al Gore starts off with a huge vault load of them. Companies that cannot possibly meet carbon reduction goals then pay Al so much for each credit. As the vault dwindles the price goes up until the vault is empty. At no time during this process is there any actual reduction in total carbon emissions. When the vault is empty (about the same time as the glaciers cover much of Canada) Al admits that he was wrong all along and the carbon bubble bursts.beejacon

Of course this leaves out the part about speculators leveraging carbon credits to such an expensive level that the average Canadian cannot afford to put food on the table, and also cannot afford to turn on the heater when out door temps dip to -40°.

In simple English the entire carbon credit bit is nothing more than a scam that will make Bernie Made-Off-With-Billions look like a Midget League player. *One need look no further than the fear tactics being used to promote it.* Do you remember W's speaches leading up to the Iraq Occupation. How about that doozy that helped trigger the Wall Street Blood Bath/Bailout. The pattern is obvious and it's always you and me that foot the bill.

Don't get me wrong. I love the idea of putting clean coal fired power plants in major metro areas. That way the excess heat generated can be used to heat homes or businesses around the plant and transmission costs would also be lowered.

I also strongly support major incentives for homeowners to generate at least a portion of their domestic power use. How about a system that eliminates the utilities gouge fee for homeowners that do small efficient solar or wind installations. A legal mandate that power companies must buy back excess generation at a fair price. And maybe a subsidy to keep the installation costs in line with the average Canadians pocket book. This would greatly reduce the pressure to expand the current power grid and long term would save Canadians far more than it costs.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> What we have with Suzuki and others is akin to the fundamentalist preacher getting caught with the underage same-sex hooker.


Exactly. If you try to convince me that you've developed an anti-gravity paint, I want you to stand underneath a boulder painted with it while someone pushes.

eMacMan: I agree with you. Currently, the IMF is into the trough, snarfing up 15% commission on international carbon credit trading. My favourite example of a recent trade is that of Indian car maker Tata selling a huge carbon credit for building a coal-fired plant because it _might_ have built a stinkier plant instead.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

What a useless thread. Conspiracy theorist posts "It's all a gigantic hoax" and the fellow travellers chime in with their pet conspiracy theory bits and attempting to lay troll bait for others.

For the umpteenth time every credible science organization around the world, including even in the US while Bush was still in office, has said "climate change is real and we need to find a way to reduce our carbon output to attempt to avoid a catastrophic change to our environment". 

Almost every government in the world has officially recognized this, even "Canada's New Government" under Harper — although Harper's acquiescence is only to avoid looking like an obvious whack-job by being linked to the "it's all a hoax" conspiracy theory crowd. Harper's method is to do as little as possible, while spinning as if he intends to respond to the climate change threat. This is what keeps the "it's all a hoax" crowd pleased with him as they know the game he is playing at.

Anyway, thank you bryanc and one or two others for your rationality in the face of wilful ignorance. To quote Paul Simon, "still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

chasMac said:


> Kind of like Suzuki preaching of the perils of overpopulation while siring 5 (!) children.


And not only that, he has been breaking into people's houses while they sleep, only to be caught with great gobs of goo on his hands - that he immediately drops onto the floor, ruining the carpeting, which has to be replaced with some new DuPont broadloom.

Suzuki is getting skeevier by the day - soon he'll be showing the movies in the janitor's room like Mr. Lepage did in the 70's...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Anyway, thank you bryanc and one or two others for your rationality in the face of wilful ignorance.


Agreed, bryanc is always firm in his opinion and totally respectful of the options of others whether he agrees with them or not. 

As for willful ignorance, that certainly applies to those who continue to talk the spin that is carbon credit trading. That makes the issue all about the money. Period. End of story. 

I will continue to hold the opinion that we should all do what we can to reduce our carbon footprint, but my contribution, which to date has been substantial, will not include anything that has to do with profiteering disguised as carbon trading.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Well, y'see chasMac, Suzuki says he has a special ability to teach his monstrous brood to be sensitive to the environment.


As he drives them around in his giant V-8 powered GMC Van, on his way to the airport so that they can film some segment looking at some garbage in the Don Valley...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

bryanc said:


> But make no mistake, the laws of thermodynamics say we have to change our economy because it is not sustainable. We burn way more calories than photosynthesis harvests every year so we are running a deficit. We inherited a planet loaded with lots of reduced carbon, and we've oxidized most of it in a very short period of time. But when it runs out, there are no banks to get a loan from while we adjust our economy to run on sustainable energy sources. The science behind this is clear and unarguable.


I do not think that anyone here is saying or making an argument for greater or accelerated use of energy. It is obvious to anyone that there is a limit to the resource, and that it is high time to start putting some real effort not only into conservation, but a real program of social engineering that would curb waste and extravagance. However, too many people take this very waste and turn it into some ecological disaster of "global warming" and "carbon", and this is where the argument goes off the tracks.

We have evidence that we are falling into a period of global cooling, which stems from a number of facts: that our solar maximums are now fizzling, and thus, solar output is decreasing; that pollution in the atmosphere has decreased the incidence of solar radiation on the surface by about 5% in the past forty years; that we have had lower than usual volcanic activity which may cycle high again; and that the North Atlantic Oscillation is starting to cycle to lower temperatures, which will yield cooler climate on the Eastern Seaboard and in Europe.

I think it is wrong to couple all of this together. We should be conserving energy and living smarter not because of a fake Carbon Market or fears of global warming, but simply because it is the right thing to do, if we want to avoid the need to burn dung as our only source of heat. We need to do those things that we can accomplish: more efficient vehicles; social engineering to bring people closer to their workplaces and avoid the three hour commute; to have smarter, energy saving equipment (and perhaps a way of shutting off all of the VCR clocks that no one uses). We need to do first what we know will give us benefits.

As for global warming or global cooling, the jury is still out, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be doing those things that we can and should accomplish, even if those things do not cause Carbon or Warming of any of that other hooey that is "blamed" for too many people living decadent lifestyles of waste, extravagance, and stupidity.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> For the umpteenth time every credible science organization around the world, including even in the US while Bush was still in office, has said "climate change is real and we need to find a way to reduce our carbon output to attempt to avoid a catastrophic change to our environment".


They march up to the plate at the point where they believe they can acquiesce to their advantage.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> Agreed, bryanc is always firm in his opinion and totally respectful of the options of others whether he agrees with them or not.
> 
> As for willful ignorance, that certainly applies to those who continue to talk the spin that is carbon credit trading. That makes the issue all about the money. Period. End of story.
> 
> I will continue to hold the opinion that we should all do what we can to reduce our carbon footprint, but my contribution, which to date has been substantial, will not include anything that has to do with profiteering disguised as carbon trading.


While I agree with this we also need to recognize that many of the actual poisons we pump into the atmosphere are not only toxic but have a greater greenhouse effect than CO2. Extra Mercury in our water sources for a lower CO2 output is a very poor trade-off, especially in Canada where the actual energy savings of CFBs are somewhat less than 17% in most areas.

The single biggest impact possible would be an extremely fuel efficient *REASONABLY PRICED *small auto. It is disgraceful that the new Toyota Yaris delivers about the same mileage as the '76 Honda Civic.

Big projects such as energy neutral housing projects; electrical generation that uses surplus heat to heat buildings; self contained communities that greatly reduce the need to drive, all will take many years, nor will their cause be advanced by increasing construction costs through pointless carbon trading.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

bryanc said:


> If it turns out not to be a real threat, well that's great. We may have shifted our economy onto a sustainable foundation a few decades sooner than we had to.


But you do not find such a line of reasoning specious, however well-intended? You do not think it would hinder scientists in their quest for truth? It is a very dishonest approach no? Perhaps we ought to run stories and articles relating how viewing TV causes cancer (I am sure there are some researchers who believe this): it may not be true, but it will get the kids outside. Or of course the dilemma that ethicists have struggled with beginning with the ancient Greeks: can man be good if there is no God. If the learned proclaim this to be the case, do we intentionally pull the wool over our eyes? 

Your pronouncement smacks of Pascal's gambit: we may be incorrect in our assessment of the current environmental situation, but hey, if it encourages good behaviour, I'm all for it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

oops...the difference between La Nina and the global situation......

But don't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory........

ScienceDaily:


> *Ninth Warmest February For Globe, NOAA*
> 
> ScienceDaily (Mar. 16, 2009) — The combined global land and ocean surface average temperature for February 2009 was the ninth warmest since records began in 1880, according to an analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.
> 
> ...


Ninth Warmest February For Globe, NOAA


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

UW-Milwaukee Study Could Realign Climate Change Theory - Milwaukee News Story - WISN Milwaukee

*UW-Milwaukee Study Could Realign Climate Change Theory
Scientists Claim Earth Is Undergoing Natural Climate Shift
*


> "Imagine that you have four synchronized swimmers and they are not holding hands and they do their program and everything is fine; now, if they begin to hold hands and hold hands tightly, most likely a slight error will destroy the synchronization. Well, we applied the same analogy to climate," researcher Dr. Anastasios Tsonis said.
> 
> Scientists said that the air and ocean systems of the earth are now showing signs of synchronizing with each other.
> 
> ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It is tough to question the science when you show the people here how it can be and is wrong. When something is as important as climate change is not studied from both sides of the coin, the popular verdict becomes suspect.

Add in selfless promotion of phony and invisible carbon credits and the sham is complete.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> UW-Milwaukee Study Could Realign Climate Change Theory - Milwaukee News Story - WISN Milwaukee
> 
> *UW-Milwaukee Study Could Realign Climate Change Theory
> Scientists Claim Earth Is Undergoing Natural Climate Shift
> *


A newspaper article, really? At least read the sourced material before you argue it. What is this? Grade 10 social sciences?

Here is Tsonis' stuff. I've read most of it, it's not that compelling.

A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts 

On the relation between ENSO and global climate change

Unfolding the relation between global temperature and ENSO


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> A newspaper article, really? At least read the sourced material before you argue it. What is this? Grade 10 social sciences?
> 
> Here is Tsonis' stuff. I've read most of it, it's not that compelling.


The people here are smart enough to read the original if they're interested enough. Any Grade 10 student can do that--you have proved you can do it as well. 

"Not that compelling" is it? I guess it doesn't have the spicy attraction of a good cataclysm.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> It is tough to question the science when you show the people here how it can be and is wrong.


SINC, neither you, nor I are even remotely qualified to critique the science regarding climate change. All I'm qualified to do is note that, as far as scientific communities go, the climatologists are remarkablely - really extraordinarily - in consensus, which is very unusual. But I can't claim to grok the science. It's not my field. And it's sure as h3ll not yours.

So if you want to keep what credibility you have (at least with me, and you certainly have some), you should refrain from pontificating about what science is right and what science is wrong.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> SINC, neither you, nor I are even remotely qualified to critique the science regarding climate change. All I'm qualified to do is note that, as far as scientific communities go, the climatologists are remarkablely - really extraordinarily - in consensus, which is very unusual. But I can't claim to grok the science. It's not my field. And it's sure as h3ll not yours.
> 
> So if you want to keep what credibility you have (at least with me, and you certainly have some), you should refrain from pontificating about what science is right and what science is wrong.
> 
> Cheers


Fair comment bryanc, but if you are telling me that science cannot be wrong, then I am happy to retract my statement.

Until then I will continue to believe fervently that some of the science has to be wrong. That is unless they are perfect, and I seriously doubt that they are 100% right 100% of the time. You as a scientist should know this full well.

Until such time as it can be proven they are, my statement stands. I find it more than credible when looked at from that perspective, don't you?


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

SINC said:


> Fair comment bryanc, but if you are telling me that science cannot be wrong, then I am happy to retract my statement.
> 
> Until then I will continue to believe fervently that some of the science has to be wrong. That is unless they are perfect, and I seriously doubt that they are 100% right 100% of the time. You as a scientist should know this full well.
> 
> Until such time as it can be proven they are, my statement stands. I find it more than credible when looked at from that perspective, don't you?


That is some bad logic SINC. 

You will believe anything until it can be proven without a single doubt.

Why not do the same in the reverse then? Why not say, I will believe the enormous amount of scientific data and consensus on climate change until it can proven without a doubt that it doesn't exist and by this, err on the side of caution.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> The people here are smart enough to read the original if they're interested enough. Any Grade 10 student can do that--you have proved you can do it as well.
> 
> "Not that compelling" is it? I guess it doesn't have the spicy attraction of a good cataclysm.


You haven't really responded to my argument in any integral fashion.

I ask you again, have you read the actual reports before you have used his final conclusion as evidence of your convictions? 

If you are basing your position on this,



> "Imagine that you have four synchronized swimmers and they are not holding hands and they do their program and everything is fine; now, if they begin to hold hands and hold hands tightly, most likely a slight error will destroy the synchronization. Well, we applied the same analogy to climate," researcher Dr. Anastasios Tsonis said.


then one cannot very well understand nor consciously accept your argument.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Adrian. said:


> That is some bad logic SINC.
> 
> You will believe anything until it can be proven without a single doubt.
> 
> Why not do the same in the reverse then? Why not say, I will believe the enormous amount of scientific data and consensus on climate change until it can proven without a doubt that it doesn't exist and by this, err on the side of caution.


Adrian, when one believes, as I do, that the whole "science argument" is carefully construed by the UN and their 15% requested stake in the fairly tale carbon credit trading scam, I do not take anything at face value.

Someone or some group or some country is driving this nonsense to make a fortune by spreading fear among people who blindly accept their "findings".

I do err on the side of caution by being a responsible member of society, and as such, recycle, reuse and do all things possible to reduce my consumption and my carbon footprint. On that point we agree completely.

It's the snake oil salesmen who spread fear for profit that I don't trust.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> I will continue to believe fervently that some of the science has to be wrong. That is unless they are perfect, and I seriously doubt that they are 100% right 100% of the time. You as a scientist should know this full well.


Of course some science will be wrong. Science is fundamentally a method of dealing with uncertainty. It is often wrong. But when it is, it very rapidly discovers the error and corrects it. That's how careers are built in science. There's nothing better for launching a career in science than overturning a widely-held paradigm.



> Until such time as it can be proven they are, my statement stands.


My objection was with your declaration that this is 'bad' science. You are in no way qualified to judge what is good and what is bad science. I am qualified to make such judgements, but only within my field of expertise, and climatology isn't it. So I refrain from making such judgements about the science. However, as a scientist, I can tell you that you don't see such consensus among researchers in _any_ field very often, and that gives me reason to be very concerned that the consensus understanding - that human activity is having a significant impact on the global climate - is amazingly well supported.

Even more importantly, the fact that you expect science to 'be proven' shows a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and what science does. Empirical science can never prove anything. It can only *DISPROVE*.

This is why evolution has not been proven, and it is why people looking for 'proof' of the link between human activities and global warming are always able to say that it hasn't been proven. Nothing in science can be proven. Hypotheses and theories get increasing well supported until a lawyer might declare them 'beyond a reasonable doubt' but in science there is always doubt, uncertainty, and alternative explanations.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Nothing in science can be proven. Hypotheses and theories get increasing well supported until a lawyer might declare them 'beyond a reasonable doubt' but in science there is always doubt, uncertainty, and alternative explanations.
> 
> Cheers


And that sir, is exactly why I choose to doubt the current consensus. As long as "reasonable doubt" exists, I will not be sold the fear mongering and I will never agree to carbon credit trading to survive. It just is a very bad idea designed to line someone or something's pockets.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

SINC said:


> Adrian, when one believes, as I do, that the whole "science argument" is carefully construed by the UN and their 15% requested stake in the fairly tale carbon credit trading scam, I do not take anything at face value.
> 
> Someone or some group or some country is driving this nonsense to make a fortune by spreading fear among people who blindly accept their "findings".
> 
> ...


I do not agree with the snake oil of carbon trading either. Something is not adding up in your logic though SINC.

You say that climate change is being construed to profit from carbon trading. Fair enough. 

What do you say to the many, many, many organisations and people who are far from affiliated with the UN, yet qualified scientifically to argue that climate change is a real scientific pattern? 

Furthermore, carbon trading was shot down the Kyoto rounds and is not going to be included in the Copenhagen rounds. It has never taken much currency or ever been fully implemented. It is effectively a footnote to the entire issue of climate change. 

I do not see why you dwell on something such as this.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> I ask you again, have you read the actual reports before you have used his final conclusion as evidence of your convictions?


Of course. I find it compelling. But I will not link to a PDF that must be downloaded to be viewed.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Of course. I find it compelling. But I will not link to a PDF that must be downloaded to be viewed.


Wouldn't a simple NO have sufficed?


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Of course. I find it compelling. But I will not link to a PDF that must be downloaded to be viewed.


The first link does not work, but the last two do work. None require downloading. 

Please elaborate on how you find the arguments compelling.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Niteshooter said:


> Wouldn't a simple NO have sufficed?


No.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Adrian. said:


> I do not agree with the snake oil of carbon trading either. Something is not adding up in your logic though SINC.
> 
> You say that climate change is being construed to profit from carbon trading. Fair enough.
> 
> ...


Good point Adrian.

You see, if it were not for people like me who would not be sold the carbon trading BS proposed by Kyoto, it never would have been dropped the from Copenhagen rounds.

Now all we have to do is bring some sanity to the new Copenhagen rounds to finish our goal of diminishing the spread of fear mongering by such groups. It all takes time, but patience, I'm told, is a virtue. 

Eventually, we'll come round to nearer the truth. Until then the good fight continues.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

Well I think there is certainly a lot of fear mongering taking place but once you cut through all the fluff there seems to be some truth to the problem. 

Moi, I'm more inclinded to the axial tilt theory since I notice the sun seems to be setting further and further to the north....

and how global warming can chill the planet....

Problem is though the time frames involved are so enormous that I doubt any one person will live to see the effects at least us old folks over 50......


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

Macfury said:


> No.


and that as a yes.... you seem conflicted....


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

The give away regarding carbon credits is the fear mongering being used to promote them. Lots of historical examples of a populace led down the garden path by fear. Hitler too far back for you? The high school bully? How about the war on/of terror coupled with the occupation of Iraq. 

Good rule of thumb. When someone tells you to be very afraid, it is excellent advice. You should be really afraid of those urging you to be afraid!

Carbon Credits are a scam. They will not reduce CO2 emissions. They will do major damage to your pocket book. Did you like paying $5.00 for a gallon gasoline. Just wait till those Oil Futures traders start leveraging Carbon Credit futures.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Sinc, your own position on climate change may be benign, but your principle of ignoring the weight of evidence because it remains unproven is not. If you waited for science to prove how the world works you would not be using a pacemaker, taking medication, driving your RV. You wouldn't step on an airplane and you wouldn't be using a Mac. All of these practices/devices are unproven in the sense that you apply to global warming.

What will it take? My guess is that your burden of proof is impractical. The science you conveniently choose to ignore would universally fail society if subject to such levels of certainty. What drives climate scientists is not the desire to agree but to warn that significant change is happening. The rest is politics - which you are perfectly entitled to rail against. But by questioning the validity of the science, you are doing a disservice to the integrity of the scientists who are simply interested in understanding what is going on and you provide consolation for those who are also in denial. Separate the science from the politics and you will have moved an important step beyond where you are now, without drinking the Cool Aid of those that manipulate interpretation of the data.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

used to be jwoodget said:


> But by questioning the validity of the science, you are doing a disservice to the integrity of the scientists who are simply interested in understanding what is going on and you provide consolation for those who are also in denial.


Scientists aren't gods. They are just as likely to be coerced as politicians or plumbers.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Scientists aren't gods. They are just as likely to be coerced as politicians or plumbers.


Did I say they were gods? There are good and bad scientists. The best ones let their findings do the talking. But if you aren't willing to listen, how would you ever know?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Sinc, your own position on climate change may be benign, but your principle of ignoring the weight of evidence because it remains unproven is not. If you waited for science to prove how the world works you would not be using a pacemaker, taking medication, driving your RV. You wouldn't step on an airplane and you wouldn't be using a Mac. All of these practices/devices are unproven in the sense that you apply to global warming.


First be clear that I do not have a pacemaker although I admit to taking medication and yes, I do have an RV. My meds have been started and stopped enough times to lead me to believe that cardiology is a certain amount of guesswork as to how to maintain levels desired by physicians that make me feel like hell, and levels where I feel good and am much more comfortable.

I flew millions of miles during my career in both commercial and private jets and also thousands of hours in prop aircraft both on wheels and floats when I was part owner of a fishing lodge. I had three very close calls in aircraft and consider myself extremely lucky to have survived all three incidents, one in a commercial aircraft and two in private aircraft, one a jet. No aircraft is fail safe and recognizing that, the minute I retired, I vowed I would never again leave this earth in such contraptions. True to myself, I have not flown since June of 2000 and never will again.

My Mac is a 2.2 Ghz MBP and the logic board failed and was just replaced by Apple at age 15 months

So you see ubjw, I believe the science behind climate change is possibly as flawed as the science behind those meds I take, those planes that failed me and the Mac that went poof just last week.

None of your "examples" changes my mind one bit about the science of climate change. It has the potential to be as bad, or as good as the examples I just outlined for you.

As I stated before, I will do my part to reduce carbon output, but don't ever think I will swallow the kool aid being served by those who continue to spread climate fear with the aim of finding riches. It ain't gonna happen anytime soon.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Did I say they were gods? There are good and bad scientists. The best ones let their findings do the talking. But if you aren't willing to listen, how would you ever know?


I listen and am unconvinced by some, convinced by others. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and this has not been supplied.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Sorry about the pacemaker Sinc, my mistake. I remember your writing about your remarkable recovery from heart problems.

I could give 10 other examples of scientific evidence that drives our lives without absolute proof/infallibility, but that's not the point. You are setting a standard of proof for climate change that is simply impossible to achieve and is tantamount to denial. I find that's a shame, that's all.....

P.S. Am sitting at Edmonton airport waiting for the red-eye to TO. I wish I didn't have to fly right now.....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Nobody needs 100% proof, just a proof extraordinary enough to cover the extraordinary claims and demand for extraordinary action.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Macfury said:


> I listen and am unconvinced by some, convinced by others. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and this has not been supplied.


Buy up some waterfront property in Florida. You'll make a killing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Buy up some waterfront property in Florida. You'll make a killing.


I suspect that joke might have had more effect before the real estate bubble burst. But yes, I would have no qualms about buying waterfront property in Florida.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

used to be jwoodget said:


> P.S. Am sitting at Edmonton airport waiting for the red-eye to TO. I wish I didn't have to fly right now.....


On that note ubjw, you have my deepest sympathy. Been there. Done that. Far too many times.

From 45 km north of your present position, I wish you a good flight. I hope to hell you can sleep on a plane. I never could.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Nah, me neither. Too much noise, too little space, too bad! At least I'll get a couple of hours in bed tomorrow morning....


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Adrian, when one believes, as I do, that the whole "science argument" is carefully construed by the UN and their 15% requested stake in the fairly tale carbon credit trading scam, I do not take anything at face value.
> 
> Someone or some group or some country is driving this nonsense to make a fortune by spreading fear among people who blindly accept their "findings".





Macfury said:


> Scientists aren't gods. They are just as likely to be coerced as politicians or plumbers.


Two examples of this conspiracy theory favoured by those who will deny the existence of human-caused climate change, that the UN, or some shadowy group of scientists or government bureaucrats or whoever has hoodwinked every major science organization as well most of the world's governments into believing that climate change is real and needs to be dealt with.



Macfury said:


> Nobody needs 100% proof, just a proof extraordinary enough to cover the extraordinary claims and demand for extraordinary action.


The conspiracy theory that I highlighted above is the extraordinary claim, not the scientific evidence and broad acceptance. And the extraordinary action is to carry on doing nothing in the face of that evidence. 

The irrational fear here is the rambling of the doubters who will grasp at the ravings of other disreputable doubters on the internet as "proof" that global warming is a hoax and conspiracy, because they fear their "right" to waste copious amounts of fossil fuels cheaply and wherever and whenever they please might be slightly compromised.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Gratuitous, I wouldn't even give it the status of a hoax. It's a social movement and little else. No conspiracy theories, no shadowy organizations, just a bunch of self-motivated bureaucrats, people with hair shirts to claw at, expiation of guilt feelings, a lot of blind blubbering and others jumping on the bandwagon hoping to cash in.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The conspiracy theory that I highlighted above is the extraordinary claim, not the scientific evidence and broad acceptance. And the extraordinary action is to carry on doing nothing in the face of that evidence.


For perhaps the 1,000th time GA, I have repeatedly stated that I am dong my part for the environment and climate change. I have written again and again that such actions are the prudent thing to do, in spite of the claims made by science about climate change.

To date, I have:

- Opened a home office to eliminate driving to the workplace reducing my annual driving to under 5,000 km per year from 40,000 to reduce carbon output.

- Installed a new high efficiency furnace in my home.

- Replaced every window in my home with energy efficient models.

- Insulated my attic by another foot on top of existing.

- Installed new all weather doors and storm doors.

- Added solar power to my motor home to avoid generator use.

- Recycle everything that comes in the house. We send a single half bag to the land fill once every two weeks.

- Planted six more trees on our property.

- Curtailed the use of pesticides and fertilizers on our lawn and opted for environmentally safe options.

- Installed low flush toilets to reduce water consumption.

- Installed new eavestrough and drains to catch rain water in barrels to use on lawns, flower beds and gardens, again reducing consumption of city water.

I can and will be responsible and believe it is the right thing to do, even though it cost me over $30,000 to complete. Just don't try to sell me snake oil with profits in mind is all I ask.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: You've said the litany, but you need to accept the sacrament of man-made global warming.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

I believe in climate change; whether we are moving to a predominantly cooler or warmer, more stable or more unstable climate; this I am certain I don't know. I believe this because it would be _hugely_ surprising to find out that our climate wasn't changing. Afterall, what in the natural world is static? Mountain ranges will disappear given time. And, over the years climate change has occurred at a pace more observable within human lifetimes (I am sure the topic of mini-ice ages has been beaten to death by those on both sides of the argument). 

So I believe it must be happening. What I am unsure of is how we can be so absolutely certain it is anthropogenic. Article upon article is released stating that sea levels are rising and weather patterns are becoming more unpredictable, more severe. It is almost as if those who don't support greenhouse gas reduction, and anti-pollution measures are being set-up, and wasting their energy. I sincerely think this group is being baited. Succinctly put, the issue of man-made climate change should be taken-up, rather than climate-change itself. Climate change is happening. Let's accept it and move on. The bigger question is, and really what news article upon news article should be addressing: are humans the direct cause of climate change. 

There, I've said my piece (and alienated people on both sides of the issue)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I doubt you've alienated anyone. The climate changes all the time. Most of the research we see makes a ludicrous jump in logic between any climate change and human activity. We don't even know wht normal climate change is because it hasn't been studied well enough.

I ask this question repeatedly, but haven't received an answer. What is the optimum temperature of the Earth? If CO2 controls the thermostat, then to what temperature are we trying to set the Earth? By which goalpost shall we measure the success or (probable) failure of these schemes?


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Macfury said:


> I doubt you've alienated anyone. The climate changes all the time. Most of the research we see makes a ludicrous jump in logic between any climate change and human activity. We don't even know wht normal climate change is because it hasn't been studied well enough.
> 
> I ask this question repeatedly, but haven't received an answer. What is the optimum temperature of the Earth? If CO2 controls the thermostat, then to what temperature are we trying to set the Earth? By which goalpost shall we measure the success or (probable) failure of these schemes?


It just seems to me that so much breath and paperwork is being devoted to whether or not the climate is changing; not what is of far more critical importance: are we the cause? That is why I believe that people to the right of the issue are being take for a ride, they get bogged down by producing graphs and papers showing that polar ice sheets are not receding, and what not, when of course this is neither here nor there. It does not mean that we are engineering the change. Conversely, in favour of those who support AGW (by W I mean climate change in general), is the fact that even were we not able to observe any change, it does not mean we are in fact not causing climate change.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

But if the climate isn't changing in a significant fashion (i.e., within historical norms) then searching for a further link between human activity and climate is irrelevant.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

chasMac said:


> What I am unsure of is how we can be so absolutely certain it is anthropogenic.


This is where you're going off the rails. No one is claiming to be absolutely certain. The scientific consensus (and there is remarkable consensus on this issue) is that there is a lot of strong, independent, mutually-corroborating evidence that human activity is having a significant effect, and we have now developed predictive models that correctly fit previous observations and predict future consequences ranging from serious to catastrophic, depending on how well we can regulate GHG emissions over the next 50-100 years.

This is how science works. There are no guarantees.

To ignore the best scientific advice on such an issue would be insanity.

Of course, the problem lays in the implementation of solutions, because that's where politics and money enters the equation. I have no doubt that there are scammers and charlatans lining their pockets on both sides of this issue, but that's true of all large scale human endeavors. You can be certain that there were war-profiteers lining their pockets when the Allies fought the Axis in World War II, but that didn't alter the fact that Hitler was a threat that needed to be fought.

The bottom line is that to say 'no one has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that climate change is our fault so we're not going to do anything about it' is both foolish and irresponsible. It may not be our fault, and we may not be _able_ to do anything about it, but we'd be stupid not to try.

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"This is how science works. There are no guarantees.

To ignore the best scientific advice on such an issue would be insanity." 

An excellent and valid point, bryanc.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> It may not be our fault, and we may not be _able_ to do anything about it, but we'd be stupid not to try.


If we try too hard to tilt at windmills, we'd also be stupid.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc has the right idea as to how we can each lessen our carbon footprint with all of the things he has done in and around his home. Kudos to you, mon ami.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Macfury said:


> But if the climate isn't changing in a significant fashion (i.e., within historical norms) then searching for a further link between human activity and climate is irrelevant.


That is a good point (forgive me, before joining ehmac I had not given all that much thought to this topic. Now after realizing how *BIG* this is here, I find myself taking more and more note of any articles I come by). This then must necessitate putting all our store in tree rings and ice sheets correct? Guess I've to read up on that to.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC has done these things voluntarily. I don't approve of people being forced to do these things.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

bryanc said:


> This is where you're going off the rails. No one is claiming to be absolute certain. The scientific consensus (and there is remarkable consensus on this issue) is that there is a lot of strong, independent, mutually-corroborating evidence that human activity is having a significant effect, and we have now developed predictive models that correctly fit previous observations and predict future consequences ranging from serious to catastrophic, depending on how well we can regulate GHG emissions over the next 50-100 years.
> 
> This is how science works. There are no guarantees.
> 
> Cheers


You've often spoke of science's fallibility.

I don't think I am 'going off the rails' by posing this. I am not claiming absolutely certainty. I am claiming certainty to the point that matters, and goverments are certain that we are causing this (I would go so far as to say _they_ are indeed _absolutely_ certain). Besides when trillions of dollars are at stake (that is a certainty), we have the right to demand a very high degree of certainity.



bryanc said:


> It may not be our fault, and we may not be able to do anything about it, but we'd be stupid not to try.


You truly mean this? If it is indeed not our fault, we'd be pissing away more money than at any point in our history for naught, it's like declaring war on an enemy that doesn't exist. THAT would be stupid.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

chasMac said:


> I am not claiming absolutely certainty. I am claiming certainty to the point that matters, and goverments are certain that we are causing this (I would go so far as to say _they_ are indeed _absolutely_ certain).


Certainty is for priests. Science deals in uncertainty. But you asked how they could be absolutely certain and my point is that scientists aren't claiming they're certain. This, of course, is jumped on by the PR spin doctors working for the oil companies as reason to doubt, postpone decisions, do another study, have another summit, and generally continue doing nothing about the problem.



> Besides when trillions of dollars are at stake (that is a certainty), we have the right to demand a very high degree of certainity.


You may have the right, but you ain't gonna get it. Nature doesn't care if we live or die, let alone if we're certain about the effects we're having on the our planet. If we can figure it out, good for us, but I'm sure the dinosaurs weren't certain about the causes of the climate change that killed them and no-one gave them an extension because they hadn't figured it out yet.

I find it ironic that people think the dinosaurs were dumb, but they got hit by a comet that they had no control over and couldn't possibly have seen coming, whereas humans are fouling their own nest and thinking of themselves as intelligent.

Perhaps the most frustrating thing about this is that, while yes, there are trillions of dollars at stake, those are trillions of dollars we could be earning by developing green technologies like the Germans, French, Norwegians, and Japanese are, rather than trillions of dollars we're paying to buy those technologies.

The inescapable fact is that the global economy has to become sustainable, and there's big money to be made in adapting our industries to sustainable energy, but Canada (and to a lesser extent, the US) is fixated on sticking with fossil fuels to the bitter end. That's not only bad for our environment, it's bad for our economy.

Cheers


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

The fact that some of us oppose Carbon Credits and recognize it as a scam designed to line Al Gore's (and others) pockets does not mean we favour doing nothing. 

I will repeat myself. Al Gore's energy use is 20 times the national average BEFORE the airline flights. My personal use is less than 1/30th of Al Gore's pre-flight use and I will wager also that I use significantly less than either MacDoc or David Suzuki. If the CO2 types want to be taken seriously they have to let their personal lifestyles reflect their "beliefs".

The key is not Carbon Credits which will do nothing to tackle the problem. We need to address the most important issues first. The Alberta Tar Sands are a pet target of the CO2 types but the real tar sands issue is the water pollution they create. Tackle that then worry about CO2.

If you want people to drive more economical vehicles some one has to produce them. If auto makers are shelling out big bucks for carbon credits they won't have it to spend developing truly fuel efficient cars, especially in the current economy. 

Carbon Credits will significantly increase the cost of insulation and yes food. Idiotic! Better insulation is an important ingredient for long term energy savings and food is vital for our very existence.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Perhaps the most frustrating thing about this is that, while yes, there are trillions of dollars at stake, those are trillions of dollars we could be earning by developing green technologies like the Germans, French, Norwegians, and Japanese are, rather than trillions of dollars we're paying to buy those technologies.


Let's spend a trillion dollars on building a matter replicator. That would be better than pissing it away on those green technologies, only a few of which are huge money makers. And many of those technologies are being developed by private companies because they can MAKE MONEY WITH THEM, not because they happen to be green or because government has enacted some draconian regulations.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> I will repeat myself. Al Gore's energy use is 20 times the national average BEFORE the airline flights.


And I will repeat myself. Al Gore's behavior has nothing to do with the merits (or lack thereof) of his arguments. Attack the arguments, not the person.

Personally, I don't think carbon credits are necessarily a great idea, but I'm not an economist, and I haven't heard anything better promoted. If no one has any better ideas, I'd rather see a carbon credit system implemented than more nothing. However, I'd much rather someone promote a better solution, because I agree, the carbon credit system seems too easy to exploit.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Let's spend a trillion dollars on building a matter replicator.


The thing that's really irritating about your posting style is that it's clear you're bright enough to make a useful contribution, but you persist is this sophomoric clownishness. I'll admit that it's sometimes amusing, but it gets old and I wish you'd try to contribute something more constructive.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
The Tar Sands aren't the problem - it is the gross misuse of energy by Americans - who consume what, half the energy that the world produces.

Cars aren't the problem either - it is the poor layout of cities where people are forced into lengthy commutes everyday to get to some far away job.

Carbon is an element, not a pollutant - it is only a pollutant because we use far too much energy unwisely, and with maximum amounts of waste.

All of this comes down to the almighty dollar. Companies like Ford, GM and Chrysler produce obsolete, energy wasting vehicles (though biodegradable because they rust out so fast) because they can make fat profits shoving out trucks rather than cars. And why is this? Because trucks have different safety regulations, or should I say, a lack of safety regulations in comparison to cars which must meet far more stringent reuqirements. And not only for safety, trucks do not have to meet gasoline consumption guidelines either - which means that the greedy folk at the Big 3 can continue to build their retrograde engines built with the equipment they purchased in the 60's.

Corporates choose to locate in places like downtown Toronto because it stokes their egos, and they can continue to live their decadent and opulent lifestyles in their mansions - rather than locating their businesses somwhere where people can actually afford to live and can get to work without commuting like crazy. 

Everything is about the whole climate change lark, where scientists actively ignore data so that their data looks better. They ignore the decline in sunspot counts and the decrease in solar output - while praising the Tar Sands is their salvation when it comes to NSERC grants. That way, they can continue to fly to special conferences in far away places, where those airplanes inject smog directly into the stratosphere, where it stays for a considerable length of time. It is as if these scientists have never heard of teleconferencing or iChat.

"Global Warming" is just another industry, set up to bilk people of money, while providing nothing in return, next to providing opulence and extravagance to the various folk heros of their industry. In none of this has anyone ever stepped up and said "you got to stop living stupidly". We haven't even solved the problems of pollution that we knew about in the 60's and 70's - those things are passe and remain mostly unsolved - so it is time to move on to build an even bigger zeppelin...

Carbon Credits are bunk, just a fast way for the Madoff's of the world to score a quick payout because those diamond encrusted, solid gold bicycles are going fast.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

bryanc said:


> I find it ironic that people think the dinosaurs were dumb, but they got hit by a comet that they had no control over and couldn't possibly have seen coming, whereas humans are fouling their own nest and thinking of themselves as intelligent.
> 
> Perhaps the most frustrating thing about this is that, while yes, there are trillions of dollars at stake, those are trillions of dollars we could be earning by developing green technologies like the Germans, French, Norwegians, and Japanese are, rather than trillions of dollars we're paying to buy those technologies.
> 
> ...


And I am sure the dinosaurs had developed their own green technologies in anticipation of the comet. 

Your dim view of humanity reminds me of Dr Suzuki's view (sorry to bring him up, not trolling here), who claims that the world was better place some 70 years ago when he was born, for the reason it was less polluted, less materialistic. It'd probably be pointless to bring up the massive reduction in child mortality and eradication of a myriad of diseases. We clear-cut and drive hummers; degenerates we are.

But back on topic. May I ask if society as whole has the right to ask what the chance of a decscent into world-wide environmental calamity is should we eschew their advice, assuming production continues at the present rate by the present means. Is it 100% assured? 51%? 10% chance? Are we not owed this? Massive lifestyle and societal adjustments are implied by their studies.

As far as our penchant for fossil fuels being bad for the economy, fair comment. Logically we run out of a finite resource. But are you so cynical of big business that they would drive their market to oblivion? That they would not change of their own accord, and develop new technologies to sustain their existance and by extension the world's?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

bryanc said:


> And I will repeat myself. Al Gore's behavior has nothing to do with the merits (or lack thereof) of his arguments. Attack the arguments, not the person.


He has no credibility because he doesn't practice what he preaches, just like Suzuki. His arguments do not include those things that are so very important - that being the scientific facts, and the current trends that are leading to an episode of global cooling (these being decreased solar activity and Maunder minimum like sunspot counts, a cooling trend in the North Atlantic, pollution that is blocking upwards of 5% of the light from the sun, and the fact that we haven't had much volcanic action in the past decade or so).



> f no one has any better ideas, I'd rather see a carbon credit system implemented than more nothing. However, I'd much rather someone promote a better solution, because I agree, the carbon credit system seems too easy to exploit.


Better ideas simply include living smarter, and getting more out of what we have. This is something that we have entirely ignored, and when energy becomes scare, dumps like Mississauga are going to be unlivable ruins...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> The thing that's really irritating about your posting style is that it's clear you're bright enough to make a useful contribution, but you persist is this sophomoric clownishness. I'll admit that it's sometimes amusing, but it gets old and I wish you'd try to contribute something more constructive.


Blame Isaac Asimov. I was referring to his idea to focus the world's attention and resources on building a matter replicator. Just one.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chasMac said:


> May I ask if society as whole has the right to ask what the chance of a decscent into world-wide environmental calamity is should we eschew their advice, assuming production continues at the present rate by the present means. Is it 100% assured? 51%? 10% chance? Are we not owed this? Massive lifestyle and societal adjustments are implied by their studies.


No you may not ask, because none of us are--apparently--fit to judge any scientific research. We just have to accept it and go with their ideas. Then if they happen to be wrong they'll just apologize for wasting trillions of dollars, but we'll still think it's jolly because now we're all green--even though we never needed to be.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

chasMac said:


> Your dim view of humanity reminds me of Dr Suzuki's view (sorry to bring him up, not trolling here), who claims that the world was better place some 70 years ago when he was born, for the reason it was less polluted, less materialistic. It'd probably be pointless to bring up the massive reduction in child mortality and eradication of a myriad of diseases.


I'm a dyed-in-the-wool technophile, and have no desire to return to the past. Although there are clearly aspects of society that have undergone some unfortunate evolution in the past few decades, I think we're far better off now, or at least we would be if our population hadn't exploded during the same time frame (another brewing catastrophe that scientists have been trying to get people to do something about for decades, BTW). At any rate, I think new technologies, as well as the 'common sense' reductions in our waste, etc. the EvanPitts correctly suggests above are going to be necessary for our species to survive the challenges we've inadvertently/unnecessarily set for ourselves.



> May I ask if society as whole has the right to ask what the chance of a decscent into world-wide environmental calamity is should we eschew their advice, assuming production continues at the present rate by the present means. Is it 100% assured? 51%? 10% chance? Are we not owed this?


We have every right to ask, but since it's us that has to do the answering, we have no assurance that our answer will be correct. The only thing we know for certain is that our global civilization is using energy far faster than photosynthesis is storing it, so we are on an unsustainable course. Apart from that the only certainty is uncertainty. Ask 5 climatologists and you'll probably get 15 answers. That doesn't mean we don't know anything, it's just a function of the kind of knowledge we have about things like climate; the more data we have the narrower the confidence intervals, but nothing is ever certain.



> Massive lifestyle and societal adjustments are implied by their studies.


Yep. But it is clear that these sorts of changes will be necessary at some point in the near future. It may be that the current global warming crisis is a false alarm, and we can get away with our profligate use of fossil fuel for another decade or two, but there's no doubt that it has to stop. So why not stop now?



> But are you so cynical of big business that they would drive their market to oblivion?


Um... have you looked at the global economy lately?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> No you may not ask, because none of us are--apparently--fit to judge any scientific research.


If you want to judge scientific research, spend a few decades getting educated in the field so you can rationally evaluate the data. Otherwise, the best you can do is accept the consensus of the experts in the field.



> Then if they happen to be wrong they'll just apologize for wasting trillions of dollars, but we'll still think it's jolly because now we're all green--even though we never needed to be.


If, by 'green' you mean living within the energy budget of the planet, we most certainly do need to be green.

I've often found it ironic that the same 'right-wing' fiscal conservatives who argued so vociferously (and correctly, in my view) against deficit financing, seem so completely confused when the same logic is applied to energy. This is all the more perplexing when one considers that money is not 'real' in any objective sense (we create money and it only has value because we all agree that it does), whereas energy is objectively real and measurable.

Given that the net photosynthetic activity on earth fixes X calories of solar energy in the form of reduced carbon per year, and that humans oxidize (burn) 2X calories of reduced carbon in the form of fossil fuels per year, what do you think will happen when the oil runs out? We're living exactly like some clueless 18 year-old who's parents have died and he's inherited a couple hundred grand. Rather than saving the cash and going to school to learn some marketable skills, he's partying on the inheritance until it runs out. The difference is that there are no social services to fall back on when our inheritance runs out.

It's time to grow up and live within our budget.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> If you want to judge scientific research, spend a few decades getting educated in the field so you can rationally evaluate the data. Otherwise, the best you can do is accept the consensus of the experts in the field.


As I told you chas-mac. Don't talk or disagree, just listen and do.



bryanc said:


> Given that the net photosynthetic activity on earth fixes X calories of solar energy in the form of reduced carbon per year, and that humans oxidize (burn) 2X calories of reduced carbon in the form of fossil fuels per year, what do you think will happen when the oil runs out?


It would be time to rely more heavily on nuclear generated electricity.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

> Um... have you looked at the global economy lately?


One hiccup and people are proclaiming the death of capitalism. Don't worry we'll be fine.



> The only thing we know for certain is that our global civilization is using energy far faster than photosynthesis is storing it, so we are on an unsustainable course.


I don't mean to be pedantic, but I thought certainty was for priests. You seem pretty certain of your position. I guess it depends on which side of the green divide you stand.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

chasMac said:


> One hiccup and people are proclaiming the death of capitalism. Don't worry we'll be fine.


I hope you're right. But my point is that the 'captains of industry' are not looking out for societies' best interests.



> I don't mean to be pedantic, but I thought certainty was for priests. You seem pretty certain of your position.


Fair cop. Unlike global climate, the energy balance of the planet is very simple, so we can be much more confident about our model; the error bars on these predictions are very small.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> It would be time to rely more heavily on nuclear generated electricity.


Why not do that now, and build our own industries and technologies, rather than doing it later, when it's a crisis and Europe has developed the technologies so we have to buy them?

Of course, nuclear power has it's own very significant problems, but I'm confident we can solve them.

Cheers


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

bryanc said:


> ...
> 
> Of course, nuclear power has it's own very significant problems, but I'm confident we can solve them.
> 
> Cheers


I remember an otherwise perfectly respectable and otherwise honest Physics Prof advancing that very same statement in the late sixties. I am older now. My current attitude is; Since it's so easy, first solve the nuclear waste issue, THEN & ONLY THEN expand our dependence on Nuclear energy. If nothing else that might just give the nuclear promoters sufficient motivation to actually tackle the issue. Again being green is not only about reducing CO2 emissions. It's even more about getting a handle on pollutants. Nuclear waste is like a guillotine poised above the neck of future generations.

In the meantime it only makes sense to live as responsibly as feasible. Prove your beliefs starting with your own homes, vehicles and commutes. Do it right and I promise your wallet will thank you.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> In the meantime it only makes sense to live as responsibly as feasible. Prove your beliefs starting with your own homes, vehicles and commutes. Do it right and I promise your wallet will thank you.


What he said.


As for the nuclear waste issue, personally I'm expecting controlled fusion to be the power source of the future, which will end the waste problem, but in the mean time, I can't understand why we aren't packaging the concentrated waste and launching it into space with rail guns and/or light gas guns (obviously rockets are prone to failure, and serious polluters themselves, so that's not really a solution).

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

eMacMan said:


> In the meantime it only makes sense to live as responsibly as feasible. Prove your beliefs starting with your own homes, vehicles and commutes. Do it right and I promise your wallet will thank you.





SINC said:


> For perhaps the 1,000th time GA, I have repeatedly stated that I am dong my part for the environment and climate change. I have written again and again that such actions are the prudent thing to do, in spite of the claims made by science about climate change.


It would seem we all agree on this common point. No one is advocating "doing nothing".


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> It would seem we all agree on this common point. No one is advocating "doing nothing".


Except a lot of politicians and the Oil Industry executives that own them.

I should make it clear that I absolutely respect and admire the efforts individual Canadians, like SINC and may others here, have made to lessen their environmental impacts. Fundamentally I don't care if you believe that climate change is a problem, or that human activity is changing the climate; I care about what you actually do. But because this is a global and international problem that will require changes in the ways industries are run, it's going to require governments to enact new legislation and to sign treaties, and politicians don't do anything unless they think it's going to help them retain and/or obtain power. So the citizens have got to be making it clear that we want real action on these issues.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> So the citizens have got to be making it clear that we want real action on these issues.


I demand real action on pollution and work personally to ensure that less of it occurs--we just differ on CO2.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I demand real action on pollution and work personally to ensure that less of it occurs--we just differ on CO2.


Probably not even that much on CO2. I see CO2 as a proxy for lots of other more serious pollutants, as well as an issue (in terms of its role as a GHG) in and of itself. If I understand you correctly, you simply don't agree (or perhaps you do, but consider it less important) on the latter point.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think that less CO2 is released if you control other pollutants, but I don't see CO2 releases as significant or important. Ultimately, I expect that peole will find better things to do with carbon dioxide and use it in some fashion--like the guy in the Maritimes who is using CO2 to make pre-cast concrete,


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

bryanc said:


> ... and politicians don't do anything unless they think it's going to help them retain and/or obtain power. So the citizens have got to be making it clear that we want real action on these issues.


I think it should be added that citizens as a whole will tend to be motivated by economic factors - in other words, they'll go green _en masse_ when it makes sense economically to do so. It's hypocritical to hold politicians to higher standards than what we reserve for ourselves. if we are to charge pols with power-grubbing, we must also acknowledge that what often motivates individual citizens is economic stability and prosperity. We all want to keep more bucks in our pockets tax-wise, we all want to make more money for our labour. How to reconcile that with calls for personal and national sacrifice and rolling out tons of expensive programs to save the planet from our own worst excesses?

The citizens should show that they want real action, by all means - but that also means it's not enough to cast one's vote for the greenest political solution; one must also be prepared to put their money where the mouth is.

At the end of the day, the politicians and their constituents are all in the same boat. We sail together... or sink together.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

chasMac said:


> And I am sure the dinosaurs had developed their own green technologies in anticipation of the comet.


Dinosaurs went their own way, and the fossil record demonstrates a large decline in speciation long before "the end". Perhaps it took a cataclysm to eradicate them, but they were certainly on the way out, as the Earth cooled down and climates changed, as well as an epoch of massive mountain building and other destruction. Places like the Great Plains, which was the location of a large and shallow inland sea surrounded by swamps, was drained by the rise of the Western Cordillera, and turned into a drier grassy prairie that was entirely unsuited for most dinosaurs (though Tricerotops loved the conditions). Whether a comet or asteroid stuck is nothing more than the event that struck the fatal blow to those creatures that were long declining and unable to adapt to new conditions.



> Your dim view of humanity reminds me of Dr Suzuki's view (sorry to bring him up, not trolling here), who claims that the world was better place some 70 years ago when he was born, for the reason it was less polluted, less materialistic.


Sure, all "old people" recall that the "old days" were "better". My grandfather thought the 20's was the best time possible, my dad thought the cars in the 50's were the best ever made, and I still think of the 70's as being "The Age Of Cool Things".

Of course, 70 years ago or so, if Suzuki had lived in BC, he would have no actual civil rights, be living in a Japanese ghetto in Vancouver, where the government would auction off all of their worldly possessions because he would be an "enemy alien", and herded into an interment camp as slaves. Yeah, the "good old days". Lucky for Suzuki, he was a Leamington boy, where the one Japanese family in town was an oddity, and hate was directed more at the garlic eating Poles and the ****** who lived in "Backatown".

Things may have been less polluted, but there was much more horse manure on the streets.



> Is it 100% assured? 51%? 10% chance? Are we not owed this? Massive lifestyle and societal adjustments are implied by their studies.


My point is that global warming or not, or conclusive studies or not - we should be concentrating at the jobs that we already have at hand: eliminating pollution, conserving energy, living smarter, better urban design, more people telecommuting, etc. Instead, we have set up a fake economy where "carbon credits" are used to create fat profits, and to protect us from any actual progressive kinds of thinking or living. We have turned a curiosity of climate into an unproductive "global warming industry", where we can "feel good" that we trade carbon credits, while not actually eliminating any waste, excess, or pollution.



> But are you so cynical of big business that they would drive their market to oblivion? That they would not change of their own accord, and develop new technologies to sustain their existance and by extension the world's?


No, because big business simply looks at the bottom line in any given quarter, while companies with a long range view may look at the bottom line after an entire fiscal year.

There is much business to be had in new technologies, but since the return on investment may be two or three years down the road, business is not capable. Even the Big Three managed to loot billions of government dollars on the PNGV project - which yielded nothing of practical value; while the people at Toyota and Honda were widely trounced upon for introducing practical Hybrid vehicles. And most of the heckling was about the fact that Hybrids are more "expensive" and have long term "payback" periods - even though a luxed-out Cadillac is far more expensive and depreciates faster than any other vehicle made...

And I do not think that any banter that concerns Global Warming or High Oceans or any of that has any meaning if all of the factors are not taken into account. As such, since the Sun supplies virtually ALL of the energy that this world has, either through the immediate gratification of a warm, sunny day, or stored for the future in the peat bogs that will become coal or oil in the long term - any talk of warming or oceans is meaningless without adding in the considerable contribution of the Sun.

Besides, we do not really know if oceans are rising since we have no current data - data that will only be collected once the geophysical satellite launched this week is commissioned and doing some work.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Of course, nuclear power has it's own very significant problems, but I'm confident we can solve them.


I'm not so confident - since the "problems" with nuclear power are not that of physics or engineering, but of politics. While we have a system where reactors are commissioned by the government and tendered to the lowest possible bidder and milked for the maximum cost overruns - nuclear power will never become effective or problem free.

The issue of waste can be ameliorated by the construction of breeder-reactors, which consume the "waste" fuel, as well as progress on reactors that can utilize Thorium and other fissile elementals. But that is quashed because breeder-reactors can make weapons-grade fissile materials, and we all know that is the main point the wet-diaper bleeding hearts have against nuclear power.

Oh, and we always get to hear about the notable disasters, like at Chernobyl, where the operators entirely overrode every safety and pushed the reactor to 150% for some kind of "research" project; or at Three-Mile Island, where defective valves were used despite having previously failed. We also get to hear about the massive cost overruns at Darlington, where the lowest bidders managed to pull off the largest cost overruns.

None of these things would ever have happened if these things remained in the realm of the physicists and engineers, but once some crackerjack at the Kremlin decides that "research" needs to be done, or that some mandarin in Ottawa decides to pay off some bidders - watch out.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says*



> Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.
> 
> Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)
> 
> ...


More from National Geographic


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> *Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says*
> 
> 
> 
> More from National Geographic


SINC, clearly the operation of the Mars rover has effected Mars' climate.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

SINC said:


> *Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says*
> 
> 
> 
> More from National Geographic


SINC,
You loose all credibility again with another one of your "big oil" propaganda sources. National Geographic? :lmao:
Just another unrespected mouthpiece for the "deniers" flogging the junk science of a solar source of warming, probably on the dole of Exon or the Bush family.
Nothing to see here folks.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Given the history of data that we have from Mar's climate, and how incredibly similar it's atmosphere is to Earth's, we'd know now wouldn't we.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Here is the majority of his hypothesis:



> Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov the head of the Space Research Laboratory at the Pulkovo
> Astronomical Observatory, a man at the pinnacle of Russia’s space-oriented scientific
> establishment, is a strong critic of manmade CO as driving global warming. The Deniers presents his observation that parallel global warmings on Mars and Earth can only be due to a long term change in solar irradiance. He has identified a 200 year cycle in solar activity that has peaked and is now decreasing. He believes that a protracted cooling period will begin in the period 2012-2015 leading to a deep freeze around 2055-60, similar to that of the Little Ice Age.


...



> NASA's findings in space come as no surprise to Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at Saint Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory. Pulkovo -- at the pinnacle of Russia's space-oriented scientific establishment -- is one of the world's best equipped observatories and has been since its founding in 1839. Heading Pulkovo's space research laboratory is Dr. Abdussamatov, one of the world's chief critics of the theory that man-made carbon dioxide emissions create a greenhouse effect, leading to global warming.
> "Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians," he told me. "These parallel global warmings - observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth - can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."
> The sun's increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we're seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions.
> "It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth's oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."
> ...


Now...

Of the 413 top climate change deniers,

Inhofe's list includes 413 people. (Score one Inhofe; the math holds up.)

84 have either taken money from, or are connected to, fossil fuel industries, or think tanks started by those industries.

49 are retired

44 are television weathermen

20 are economists


70 have no apparent expertise in climate science

(Source: go here Inhofes 400 Global Warming Deniers Debunked - 400 Scientists Doubt Climate Change - thedailygreen.com, scroll half way down and click on the numbers to see the list of deniers and their affiliations.)


I know that Habibullo Abdussamatov is or was funded by Exxon and the Russian national fuels corporation at some point or still is. I don't have time to dig it up right now, but I'll get back to it.

SINC, I would have absolutely no problem with your arguments if you weren't so ideologically charged. I am only relaying proven, peer reviewed scientific consensus. I find it perplexing that you are so sensitive and concerned with the supposed collusion between climate change circles and "cap and trade" circles, when there is clear partisan collusion between deniers and fossil fuel organisations and other interest parties. 

I would ask you again to please clarify this for me. I mean no personal attack as such, I simply cannot seem to reach your conclusions no matter how I attempt it. 

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Adrian. said:


> SINC, I would have absolutely no problem with your arguments if you weren't so ideologically charged. I am only relaying proven, peer reviewed scientific consensus. I find it perplexing that you are so sensitive and concerned with the supposed collusion between climate change circles and "cap and trade" circles, when there is clear partisan collusion between deniers and fossil fuel organisations and other interest parties.
> 
> I would ask you again to please clarify this for me. I mean no personal attack as such, I simply cannot seem to reach your conclusions no matter how I attempt it.
> 
> Cheers


What's to understand? I simply present alternate views when I run across them.

Besides, it gives me a giggle to see all you guys get your panties in a knot! It's totally predictable. :lmao:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ah. A moving target.

Or, Just kidding!

or something.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> ah. A moving target.
> 
> Or, Just kidding!
> 
> or something.


Exactly.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

There you go, SINC. Adrian can't believe the science because of your politics. I suppose the therories supplied by a person with the "proper political credentials" would be more trustworthy.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> There you go, SINC. Adrian can't believe the science because of your politics. I suppose the therories supplied by a person with the "proper political credentials" would be more trustworthy.


When did it get political?


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Macfury said:


> There you go, SINC. Adrian can't believe the science because of your politics. I suppose the therories supplied by a person with the "proper political credentials" would be more trustworthy.


Pregnant in your remark is a parallel this with an environmentalist who is also a supporter of the global warming theory (usually one and the same). Clearly, their position is crippled by an agenda.

But dialogue is good, and the greens should welcome it, as the left often preach tolerance. And yet outfits like the Guardian have made an effort to proclaim regularly that "deniers" are the new "creationists", in their eyes the most odious comparison one can make. 

I think that if one is forced to scrounge through history for an apt comparison of denier, the best is heretic.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Yet another part of the puzzle - since solar output is the ultimate source of all energy on the Earth. Sunspot counts have been declining since their peak in the 50's, and the decline in sunspot activity is entirely linked to a decline in solar output.

Pollution has contributed to a 5% decline in solar energy incident upon the surface - thus, any contribution of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is simply compensating for the decline in energy received.

The main point that a thread like this shows is that there are a great number of people who are gullable but at the same time, infinitely capable of ignoring the big facts but entirely able to zero in on the minutae. They are at once able to engage in the worship of the message brought to us by the prophet Al Gore (who is also the inventor of the Internet), while remaining ignorant of the scientific facts that are easily measured.

CO2 emissions are not a good thing - but we need not worship CO2 as the apocalypse. We just need to live smarter and make more out of less. We need to treat CO2 as the pollutant it is, and not place it on a pediment, turning that temple into a den of money traders and greasy influence peddlers. And in this country, we have seen Government after Government fail to address even the most basic and easily fixed problems, while CO2 emissions continue to zoom up off the scale.

Nor it is some "problem" with the tar sands - it is a problem with our wastefilled lifestyle, encouraged by negative government policies and bad decision making processes. But then, HST will do more damage to the economy, pushing even more industry off of the cliff - which will save a lot of CO2 emissions in the long run - when everyone is on the dole...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Generally accurate on CO2 but sunspot and solar output are very different and at most are in the range of 10% of the variation. It's a small factor when averaged over the 11 year cycle ( within the cycle there is significant +/- variation ) but cycle medians don't change all that much.

Global dimming while strong in some areas of high pollution, some Chinese cities have been down 25% recently was at most 4% globally pre 1989 and well down from that in the 90s.
It may well have been rising again as China and India geared up added a bit to the cool PDO and La Nina of the last couple of years. The recession will see it reduced.

The problem with aerosols is that they act both as a positive forcing ( soot on ice leading to heat gain, melting and loss of albedo ) and negative forcing ( reflecting solar irradiance ),
The SO2 ( acid rain ) 30-60 years back was more of the latter.
The current pollution more particulate from China's and India's coal use and may well be accelerating ice loss in the Arctic



> NASA Study Finds Soot May be Changing the Arctic Environment
> When soot falls on ice, it darkens the surface and accelerates melting by increasing absorbed sunlight. ... They found the timing and location of Arctic warming and sea ice loss in ... particulate pollution are believed to have been from Russia and Europe. ... 09.03.2009


NASA Study Finds Soot May be Changing the Arctic Environment

If only for oceans alone we need carbon neutral.....climate be damned...

That said energy gain goes on regardless....more snowpack from more moisture = more flooding even in a La Nina year.

Upper midwest had 150 year flood in 1997, another close to the same level in 2006 and now just 3 years later a major event spinning up again.



> Major Midwest Flooding Highlighted in U.S. Spring Outlook
> 
> March 19, 2009
> 
> ...


It's not just in warmth the energy shows up. More extremes more often.

As one of the governors of the affected states quipped....

_A 100 year flood we can understand, a 100 year flood every decade or less, something else is going on._

Wonder what he will say this year......just 3 years later....

Hopefully the cool La Nina influence will delay the melt enough to avoid a major flood.
A storm in the general region is not helping nor are ice jams

Here is how close it getting to the 100 year flood levels of 1997



> More sandbagging was planned in part of Grand Forks, the city hardest hit by the 1997 Red River flood. An elaborate dike system was built after that disaster. The Red had risen to nearly 42 feet in Grand Forks on Wednesday morning* with a crest of 50 to 53 feet projected for Monday or Tuesday, compared with the record of 54.4 feet set in 1997*.


Midwest Flooding

More floods, more droughts more severe more often.

Interesting times.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Interesting times.


One thing about the weather... it's always changing.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> One thing about the weather... it's always changing.


Yep, and so's the climate. Climate change has been happening for eons.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> Yep, and so's the climate. Climate change has been happening for eons.


So true. One thing to remember is that the planet is NOT in the least threatened by climate change.

Calgary and Edmonton my be buried under half a mile of ice and snow or LA and Vancouver may find themselves underwater but the planet will do just fine!

BTW; Either way, the polar bears will adapt just as they have in the past.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> ...the polar bears will adapt just as they have in the past.


Right now they need to adapt to a huge polar bear population.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"One thing about the weather... it's always changing." True. The weather today has changed from bad to worse .............. and our climate here in St.John's has certainly changed, especially in the Springtime, in a negative sense due to global warming.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Dr.G. said:


> "One thing about the weather... it's always changing." True. The weather today has changed from bad to worse .............. and our climate here in St.John's has certainly changed, especially in the Springtime, in a negative sense due to global warming.


I wonder if it improved during the little ice age following the middle ages. Interestingly enough, it has been posited by some climatologists that this was brought about by the severe reduction in human activity (notably deforestation) following the Black Death of the 14th century.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> following the Black Death of the 14th century.


had not seen that link - you sure you are not referring to the 95% loss of population in the America's following the introduction of European diseases ( notably small pox )


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

MacDoc:



> Forest re-growth on medieval farmland after the Black Death pandemic—Implications for atmospheric CO2 levels
> 
> Abstract
> Well-dated pollen assemblages from an organic-rich infill of an oxbow lake of the river Roer (southeastern Netherlands) provide a high-resolution reconstruction of regional vegetation development and land-use for the period between AD 1000 and 1500. Regional effects of the mid-14th century plague pandemic known as the Black Death are reflected by a period of significant agricultural regression between AD 1350 and 1440. Concomitant re-growth of forest indicates the existence of a terrestrial carbon sink following the Black Death pandemic. A direct temporal correlation of the reconstructed changes in land-cover with a proxy record of atmospheric CO2 mixing ratios based on stomatal frequency analysis of Quercus robur leaf remains suggests the coupling of long-term CO2 trends of the 13th–15th centuries and coeval trends in regional forest density. During the period of maximum reforestation between AD 1400 and 1440, CO2 levels seem to be relatively low, but the onset of a CO2 decline may predate the spread of the Black Death in Europe.


From:

ScienceDirect - Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology : Forest re-growth on medieval farmland after the Black Death pandemic—Implications for atmospheric CO2 levels

And for a little lighter reading here is BBC's take:

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Europe's chill linked to disease

Make of it what you will.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

but...



> the onset of a CO2 decline may predate the spread of the Black Death in Europe.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

I agree with your sentiment Macfury, I think it is a "grasping" study, and I am sure funding for it was only made possible because of the current politcal climate; very trendy. Personally, I don't buy it. But it is exceedingly interesting, for myself especially as I read medieval history in college, with an emphasis on the economy. Deforestation was indeed massive; for example it is believed that even by pre-Roman times, the vista from Glastonbury Tor would have been essentially identical to that of the present, ie completely treeless. Britain's primordial forests, which had completely covered the isle having already by then been decimated. Not so sure if that would have had an appreciable effect on CO2 levels though.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Interestingly, I once read a study that modeled what would happen if the entire Earth were deforested. The result indicated an overall drop in average global temperature. Granted, models don't provide accurate predictions but I found it interesting that the results came out so counter-intuitively.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Interestingly, I once read a study that modeled...


Sheesh, you and your models.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm the biggest critic of models which are largely designed to create pre-ordained outcomes. The IPCC models are all based on worst-case scenarios and unproven assumptions designed to predict catastrophies. As they put it, these are "scenarios, not predictions." But when one of the models produces a surprise result, I'm always interested.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Ecology is the opiate of the masses...


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Macfury,

Speaking of models and educated predictions and the perils they entail, there was an interesting article in yesterday's NY Times on Freeman Dyson (physicist, google him, very clever fellow). He seems to share your view:



> Climate-change specialists often speak of global warming as a matter of moral conscience. Dyson says he thinks they sound presumptuous. As he warned that day four years ago at Boston University, the history of science is filled with those “who make confident predictions about the future and end up believing their predictions,” and he cites examples of things people anticipated to the point of terrified certainty that never actually occurred, ranging from hellfire, to Hitler’s atomic bomb, to the Y2K millennium bug. “It’s always possible Hansen could turn out to be right,” he says of the climate scientist. “If what he says were obviously wrong, he wouldn’t have achieved what he has. But Hansen has turned his science into ideology.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp


He's of course refering to James Hansen.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Meanwhile in the real world......climate change impacts play out right now

More floods more extreme more often...



> March 26, 2009 in Nation/World
> Red River crest could be highest ever
> Battling snow, wind, Fargo redoubles sandbagging efforts
> 
> ...


*Three 100 year flood levels in little over ONE decade....not to make a point of it......*

Still its a brutal choice these cities and residents have to face.....move or protect.......no good answers at all.

and this is playing out over a huge area. 

real time



> *The Red River in Fargo-Moorhead now has reached 39.61 feet, edging past the 1997 crest of 39.57 feet. That level was recorded at 7:15 p.m*., the latest available.
> 
> Earlier today the National Weather Service revised its upper crest from 41 to 42 feet, with 43 feet possible, by Saturday.
> 
> ...


Dyson should stick to his day job..he's NOT a climatologist and they have no doubt of what is going on.

Lap puppies like ideology not science.....

to quote MF

_"I don't like the science"_

For those that do 

Terrific doc on Nova this week on the cryosphere..

NOVA | PBS


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Biggest local flood in a century. Yawn. If it hadn't been such a cold winter, we wouldn't be seeing such a snow melt.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Biggest local flood in a century. Yawn. If it hadn't been such a cold winter, we wouldn't be seeing such a snow melt.


MF, you can't win this fight, if record lows or record highs, or hurricanes or floods are proof of GW. 

join us


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chasMac said:


> MF, you can't win this fight, if record lows or record highs, or hurricanes or floods are proof of GW.
> 
> join us


"We must fight climate change. We will have succeeded when it stops changing."

I can see MacDoc, tongue lolling, chasing the last survivors of Santa Mira in the original _Invasion of the Body Snatchers_.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
Naw, he's just waiting for The Star to post something about the emergent religion of Global Warming...


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

MacDoc said:


> Meanwhile in the real world......climate change impacts play out right now


Climate changes all the time, it always has. It has nothing to do with Global Warming or CO2, or any of that. It's serious, but it's just nature doing what it does naturally.

We had a a lot of rain during a quick thaw, of course it's going to seriously raise river levels. Meanwhile temperatures earlier in March were TWENTY DEGREES BELOW seasonal average.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bsenka said:


> We had a a lot of rain during a quick thaw, of course it's going to seriously raise river levels. Meanwhile temperatures earlier in March were TWENTY DEGREES BELOW seasonal average.


See, it changed again!!!! If only you watched the right shows as MacDoc does, you would be educated.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Be careful there, or else Suzuki will show up on your doorstep, caulk in hand...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Originally Posted by MacDoc
> Meanwhile in the real world......climate change impacts play out right now
> Climate changes all the time, it always has. It has nothing to do with Global Warming or CO2, or any of that. It's serious, but it's just nature doing what it does naturally.
> 
> We had a a lot of rain during a quick thaw, of course it's going to seriously raise river levels. Meanwhile temperatures earlier in March were TWENTY DEGREES BELOW seasonal average.


Weather changes - climate changes are over time and your twenty degrees is simply a part of a Pacific cold pattern called ENSO - in particular La Nina which we've two in a row,

It is overlain by a multidecadal oscillation called the cool phase PDO - Pacific Decadal oscillation....neither are changing the climate of the planet - both are known cool phase that do have asymmetrical world wide impacts.

Mostly LaNina is responsible to cool North American winters...often with heavy snow.

Learn something instead of making a fool of yourself

NOAA La Niña page

THIS IS climate change 



> Tropics Creeping outwards
> 
> Using the tropopause, Lu and Reichler tracked the position of the tropical belt since the 1960s and found it has slowly been getting wider. "There is a lot of natural variation from year to year," says Reichler, "but we see a slow, gradual change."* On average, the tropical boundaries are moving 0.7 degrees towards the poles each decade. This amounts to roughly 70 kilometres per decade*, or 350 kilometres in 50 years.


Drought warning as the tropics expand - environment - 01 February 2009 - New Scientist

and THIS is climate change

Arctic Report Card

and we are responsible for it......both sun and orbital are minor negative forcing. It's our activities and not just CO2 that are changing the climate.

You can continue to play stupid about it - won't change a thing other than make your kids kids curse you for a fool for any number of reasons including this.
Ocean acidification is accelerating and severe damages are imminent


The world is moving on....there are still a few think it flat..


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think I felt a hot breeze.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

MacDoc said:


> Mostly LaNina is responsible to cool North American winters.


And el nino caused the previous warming. Natural variations, nothing to see here.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bsenka said:


> And el nino caused the previous warming. Natural variations, nothing to see here.


You'll get used to King Canut after awhile.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

Macfury said:


> I think I felt a hot breeze.


Try Beano.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Niteshooter said:


> Try Beano.


How do I get him to take it?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

In a nutshell......just in....

Climate change ignorance caused by humans! Greenfyre’s


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Climate change bushwa caused by humans.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Hate to revive a thread that had degenerated. But the truth is that there is a huge amount of waste in day to day life.

Here is a great example. In Great Britain there are roughly 5 million surveillance cameras. At 20 watts/hour/camera and an off the wall guess of 1.1 pound of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour that works out to nearly 500,000 tons of CO2 that the UK produces just spying on its citizens. The cameras do nothing to prevent crime as it would take about 500,000 additional people to actually monitor those cams and thereby stop crime before it happens. At best they can try to use them to track down and solve crimes that have already happened and even here the manpower is woefully inadequate.

Seems to me that Global Warming Alarmists should be jumping all over Gordon Brown to put an immediate stop to this pointless waste. Hop to it guys.

NOTE: I say off the wall as coal is about 2 pounds per KWH depending on transport distance, Natural Gas about a pound and a third, Solar about a tenth of a pound, wind a hundredth of a pound. Anyways you see how difficult it is to come up with a number.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMAn--it's all hypocrisy. Why would anybody worried about global warming think that composting is a great way to deal with waste, since this releases carbon dioxide. It's the new religion, replete with its own sacraments.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

next Macfury will proclaim that anyone who dares fart is an eco commie hypocrite. (or did that already happen in this thread...)

He's the guy likely on Queen st. (east probably) with the T shirt that says "Save our sanity! Stop eating beans! Drive an SUV"...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> next Macfury will proclaim that anyone who dares fart is an eco commie hypocrite.


You probably invest too much time guessing what my next post will be.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> You probably invest too much time guessing what my next post will be.


you're right. 5 seconds was probably excessive. 
:baby:


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> You probably invest too much time guessing what my next post will be.


Sad thing is, they are studying the effect of cow farts on the climate in Argentina, since the big ranches are the biggest single source of methane, and methane is an important greenhouse gas.

It is obviously a mover for global warming, since the globe was far more warm when dinosaurs were around, and I'd imagine a single brontosaurus fart would be equal to a large herd of cattle letting go at once. Lucky the brontosaurs didn't need Gordon Brown's version of Big Brother. (Brown has bigger fish to deal with, now his speaker is on the ropes and is heading towards being a political dinosaur. Politicians are the single biggest source of super heated air outside of a oil rig fire.)


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Macfury said:


> eMacMAn--it's all hypocrisy. Why would anybody worried about global warming think that composting is a great way to deal with waste, since this releases carbon dioxide. It's the new religion, replete with its own sacraments.


LOL! Further to that, I was watching TVO a couple of days ago, and Paikin had this panel of "sustainable living" experts on, and one thing they said just about floored me: People who use transit use more fuel and cause more CO2 than people who use cars. Yet, what is it that the enviro-tards want people to do?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bsenka said:


> LOL! Further to that, I was watching TVO a couple of days ago, and Paikin had this panel of "sustainable living" experts on, and one thing they said just about floored me: People who use transit use more fuel and cause more CO2 than people who use cars. Yet, what is it that the enviro-tards want people to do?


yea so like I heard this guy right? He like said planes were the most environmental way to go. See that just proves enviros are just nuts.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bsenka said:


> LOL! Further to that, I was watching TVO a couple of days ago, and Paikin had this panel of "sustainable living" experts on, and one thing they said just about floored me: People who use transit use more fuel and cause more CO2 than people who use cars. Yet, what is it that the enviro-tards want people to do?


I've seen the math on this. Not only is that true, but once you count all of the subsidies it's also more expensive per mile to move people by transit than it is by individual car. You pay a premium for getting jammed into a streetcar like a sardine!


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

bsenka said:


> LOL! Further to that, I was watching TVO a couple of days ago, and Paikin had this panel of "sustainable living" experts on, and one thing they said just about floored me: People who use transit use more fuel and cause more CO2 than people who use cars. Yet, what is it that the enviro-tards want people to do?


I dunno. This is from a very recent article:




> Driving five miles in a car emits 1.27 tons of CO2. By taking a bus, that carbon footprint shrinks to only 0.12 tons


Protect the Environment; Ride a Bus | Reuters

Course, the bus's efficiency is reduced with every empty seat.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

^^^
Truth is the math is almost impossible. If the trains are electric how is it generated? How many buses or trains make the same runs empty as compared to those that are packed to the gills? How much energy is used building expanded road networks to avoid expanding public transit? How much energy is wasted in bumper to bumper traffic during the extended construction of those new roadways?

Anyways you get the idea.beejacon


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

chasMac said:


> I dunno. This is from a very recent article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You've been had by the socialist agenda. They will be funding their entire operation by windmills and electric cars.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> ^^^
> Truth is the math is almost impossible. If the trains are electric how is it generated? How many buses or trains make the same runs empty as compared to those that are packed to the gills? How much energy is used building expanded road networks to avoid expanding public transit? How much energy is wasted in bumper to bumper traffic during the extended construction of those new roadways?
> 
> Anyways you get the idea.beejacon


Dollar for dollar, cars are cheaper.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

and now that the SUVs have fallen out of favor, perhaps they are well put to use. They'll be even cheaper than anything!


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Dollar for dollar, cars are cheaper.


Until you add in parking in downtown Calgary. Like I said always one more variable.beejacon


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Until you add in parking in downtown Calgary. Like I said always one more variable.beejacon


The figures included parking.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh but I doubt it includes the late night Wendy's take out binges.


----------

