# The Great Global Warming Swindle



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Anyone convinced that scientists are in consensus over so-called Global Warming owes it to themselves to watch this documentary that ran on UK 4 recently. It's a fascinating tale of intimidation, misinformation and anti-industrialism. The documentary is available in is entirety at:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017028.php


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Thanks Macfury!

I've been wanting to see this documentary but had little hope it would ever hit the airways in Canada, especially on the far left CBC.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

I've been a little out of the GW thing on the ehMac site for a while. What exactly is it about the idea that you don't like, MF?

That Channel 4 programme you mention got very mixed reviews here.

The word 'Swindle' certainly sums up the reactions to the idea of Global Warming on the part of the twin worlds of politics and commerce, as far as I'm concerned. It's going to be an opportunity to scam billions from our pockets, and to hell with scientific debate and the fate of the planet.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Quaffer: I don't believe that human activity is having a sgnificant effect on climate. 

I'm sure the program received mixed reviews as many people believe the media hype surrounding the issue. I think your post reveals other aspects of Global Warming Theory:

1) It _is_ a groundless attack on commerce that will cost consumers billions.
2) The documentary points out that the attitude of the convinced often is "to hell with scientific debate."


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Macfury said:


> 2) The documentary points out that the attitude of the convinced often is "to hell with scientific debate."


This fact was proven a couple of weeks ago with our friend Dr. Suzuki walking out of AM 640 when the DJ tried to debate this issue with him. As far as they are concerned I guess the case is closed.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

JumboJones said:


> As far as they are concerned I guess the case is closed.


But "they" are wrong.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution how many tonnes of coal have been burned? Who burned the coal? Where did the carbon from the burned coal go? Are there are sources of GH Gas? Do these other sources of GH Gases subtract from the carbon released from burned fossil fuels?

Please inform us how this works.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Please inform us how this works.


Carbon doixide is known to be one of the least active of the so called Greenhouse Gases. The amount released by humans is insignificant to the amount released by volcanic activity and deterioration of living matter. The increases in carbon dioxide do not cause global warming. They are the result of increasing global temperatures. 

Watch the video and learn.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Ultimately, who is getting listened to, the GHG deniers or everyone else? 

Rage on, rage on...


----------



## ncoffey (Apr 6, 2005)

The arguments presented are often very flimsy on both sides, especially in the popular media due to the fact that most people watching, listening, or reading it don't have a wonderful grasp of science. Take this quote for example:



> Expert after expert in this film blasts craters into the theory that CO2 -- which only makes up 0.054% of the earth's atmosphere -- has ever driven climate. Ice core records, in fact, prove the opposite, that CO2 lags warming by as much as 800 years.


The fact that CO2 makes up that much of the atmosphere is irrelevant if a large increase (say to .1% of the atmosphere) can cause a marked increase in the greenhouse effect. The fact that CO2 has historically lagged warming also does not mean that a large increase in CO2 concentration couldn't cause a warming effect.

The whole argument is often put like this on both sides and what it comes down to is examing all the sources of warming and cooling and trying to figure out what's really causing it all. It's not enough to just say "The main cause of warming is, not surprisingly, the sun." You have to go deeper and examine the rate of warming on a global scale and examine all the various sources to see how they numerically stack up. This is a big complex problem and a single piece of evidence is unlikely to answer anything.

(note: I'm not making a claim on either side. To be honest, I don't care about the debate because the kind of action required to really control the global climate is simply not going to happen.)


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html

I found this article very helpful for a non-expert to understand the science. 

Infotainment documentaries fall short of a nice essay for analytical substance.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

There are many people, even some with scientific degrees*, who argue that evolution by natural selection could not have given rise to the diversity of life on earth. This does not change the fact that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on the validity of evolutionary theory.

There is a similar scientific consensus on global climate change, and a somewhat less unanimous but still overwhelming consensus that human activity is a factor.

Where there are scientists, there will always be dissent, but the scientific community is uncharacteristically harmonious on this aspect of the climate change issue. There are still clearly many things we don't understand about how our climate works, and there is no clear consensus about what, if anything, we can do about the changes that have already occurred. But it is clear that continuing as we have been will only make matters worse.

Finally, as I have pointed out before, even from a scientifically naive perspective there are only a few possibilities: 1) the scientists are wrong and climate change is not occurring, 2) Climate change is occurring, but the scientists are wrong and it's not our fault. 3) The scientists are right, but it's too late to do anything about it. And 4) the scientists are right, and reducing our GHG emissions will reduce the impact of the changes.

The probability of 1 seems near zero, but I put it in for completeness. However, for cases 1-3, any efforts we make to reduce our GHG emissions will have no effect on the outcome. Note however, that even in these cases any shifts we make to renewable energy sources will still be beneficial in the long term, and certainly won't make our climatological problems any worse. And, if case 4 is true, as seems most likely given the almost unprecedented consensus of the scientific community studying the issue, reducing our GHG emissions is not only a good idea, it's absolutely imperative.

So, in a nutshell, we've got to switch to renewable energy anyway, and there is compelling evidence that there may be a very high price to pay for doing it later rather than sooner.

Like a smoker that's having chest-pains, you might be lucky and just have indigestion, but quitting smoking is still a good idea.

Cheers

*I've noticed that the 'scientifically educated' people who dispute evolution are usually physicists, chemists, engineers, or medical doctors, not people with relevant training.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So MF in your wisdom what percentage of GHGs are from volcanoes?? Simple question.

••

Interesting to the see the flat earthers so thrilled by Apco, TASCC and it descendants.

Fred Singer....."The latest crisis - environmental tobacco smoke - has been widely criticized as teh most shocking distortion of scientific evidence yet."

Yeah same Fred Singer....funny that...remarkably similar phrasing.

•••

Durkin?



> In October 1998, a television producer named Martin Durkin took a proposal to the BBC's science series, Horizon. Silicone breast implants, he claimed, far from harming women, were in fact beneficial, reducing the risk of breast cancer





> This is a familiar story to those who have followed the career of the director Martin Durkin. In 1998, the Independent Television Commission found that, when making a similar series, he had "misled" his interviewees about "the content and purpose of the programmes". Their views had been "distorted through selective editing". Channel 4 had to make a prime-time apology.


What next - extolling the viritues of the National Enquirer??


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

How much effect is the sun having? We know there is climate change happening on other planets. Why?

Why is the ice growing in Antarctica but melting in the Arctic? Every time I look I see more questions. 

At one time the consensus was the earth was flat.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Adagio those are not questions easily answered in a forum.

All planets including earth have several aspects to their orbit. It is one factor in climate change including that of earth. This is a good short explanation.



> The three Milankovic cycles are: Precession, a 26,000-year periodic wobble of Earth's axis that is due to the sun's gravity constantly (but unsuccessfully) attempting to pull the plane of Earth's equator into the ecliptic (the plane of Earth's orbit) --- Obliquity, a 42,000-year periodic change in the angle of Earth's axis-tilt from 221/2 o to 241/2o (the current tilt of the axis is 231/2o) --- and Eccentricity, a 100,000-year periodic change in the shape of Earth's slightly elliptical orbit from more elliptical to less elliptical.
> 
> Both Precession and Eccentricity factors create changes in the average distance of Earth from the sun. The greater the distance, the less solar energy reaches Earth, which causes climate cooling. Correspondingly, the smaller the distance, the more solar energy reaches Earth --- which causes climate heating. Interestingly, the 100,000-year average periodic climate-change cycle is asymmetrical --- with the warming phase lasting 20,000 years, while the cooling phase lasts 80,000 years, or four times longer. A graph of the warming-cooling cycle resembles a playground slide, with a steep ascend side and a gentle descend side. We are presently in a warming phase that began 18,000 years ago.
> 
> According to Milankovic, the natural warming phase has another 2,000 years before the next natural cooling phase commences. But sudden cooling or warming excursions (rapid short-term reversals) of a warming or cooling phase) may lengthen or shorten the 2,000 years we have left before the next natural cooling phase is expected to begin. Moreover, the anthropogenic (human-related) Global-Warming factors that exacerbate the undesirable negative effects of the natural warming trend which now exists, are increasing world temperatures from the Tropics to the Poles.


Different periodic cycles for different planets and those cycles on earth have had different effects on the climate during the earth's long history depending somewhat on continent location and even the nature of life and stored carbon.

Glaciers can grow in some areas due to increased snow fall ( additional moisture in the warming air ) but overall glacial ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate everywhere even tho isolated regions may see growth due to localized changes. More critically it'snot just melting - but the release of the "plugs" around the edges are allowing the glaciers to accelerate their flow to the sea.

The greatest issue is that human activities have pushed the interglacial period that we are now in - and whose relatively stable weather has allowed the civilization we enjoy. - into levels of GHG far outside the what would be seen in other interglacial periods.
Carbon uptake and release is now altered by human activity.

The energies in climate forces are enormous, sort of like a poised avalanche where instability can set in with relatively little disturbance.
The phrase I like is that climate *lurches*....from one state to another with little time intervening - it's not a smooth process and it IS a very complicated one...it's chaotic.

It's the triggers on these "lurches" that are being pulled now - there are positive feedback triggers that can accelerate the change dramtically and negative feedbacks that can damp the changes.
A dangerous postive feedback would be release of methane from a melting Siberian ( and Canadian ) tundra. This IS happening.

So our actions by lifting the GHG levels above the norm for the interglacial period may then trigger an enormously larger methane release from carbon stored over millenia.
Small action on our part, huge non linear response from the interlocked climate mechanisms.

A few degrees warmer in the Indian Ocean....dust bowl in the US Midwest.
We're traipsing through a landscape of triggers we have put the big climate cycles into a zone not seen on the planet for a million years or more and the scale of what is triggered is still being uncovered.

We've been spoiled by taking a relatively predicatable climate for granted and we've built civilization on it and come to expect more of the same.

Truth is - stability like this we've seen since 1500 is rare. Climate lurches - feedback both negative and positive can create wild swings...perhaps more than we know...ice cores tell some strange tales.
The earlier eruption of Krakatoa preceding the Dark Ages is still being tracked as to it's effects for the next century after the eruption.

Global warming is only one aspect.....it's climate change.....and perhaps climate instability that presents a real risk to a planet over burdened with humans.

Changes in rain patterns, growth patterns, ice cover the list goes on and on impacts food supply, water supply ..and we are pushing the carbon envelope well outside historical norms......how much impact??? how fast the feedbacks operate.......none can say for sure but some things are evident already.

It's not the direct effects that are of concern - it's the triggers for feedbacks.

Ski an unstable slope??....it's risky. Your small weight may trigger a very large response.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

There are very few who deny climate change is happening. What alarms me is this so-called consensus. There isn't, despite the media hype. The voices of those who disagree are being drowned out and in some cases these people are being harassed, even with death threats. If you don't find this scary then you should be. This global warming thing has become "religion" and as far as I'm concerned I find the radicals as scary as the right wing religious nuts.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Let me set the record straight.

I was an environmentalist long before many here were born. I've long been a lover of nature and went out of my way to tread as lightly as possible on nature's floor, as far back as I remember. I'm no knuckle dragging Neanderthal without a care for my planet. I'm also educated in the sciences. I started my career as a research technician. I understand what good research is about. I also understand all too well how research can be skewed. I don't want to see that happening with something so important. When scientists are not getting funding unless it's to prove global warming I'm alarmed. Money stinks, even in the world of research.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> This fact was proven a couple of weeks ago with our friend Dr. Suzuki walking out of AM 640 when the DJ tried to debate this issue with him. As far as they are concerned I guess the case is closed.


Really? Did you bother listening to the interview? Someone in this thread put in a link to CanadaFreePress which, itself, has an audio link to the interview.

Of course, that probably won't change your beliefs...


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

adagio said:


> There are very few who deny climate change is happening. What alarms me is this so-called consensus. There isn't, despite the media hype. The voices of those who disagree are being drowned out and in some cases these people are being harassed, even with death threats. If you don't find this scary then you should be. This global warming thing has become "religion" and as far as I'm concerned I find the radicals as scary as the right wing religious nuts.


A. Define what you mean by consensus then.
B. Death threats? What death threats? I'll throw down a challenge..show us three cases of death threats.

A lot of the deniers I've seen have been shrill with talk about economic collapse, "consensus", new religion, international welfare system, we-do-it-but-they-won't, etc.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> Adagio those are not questions easily answered in a forum.


No, a forum is where you listen to pronouncements from Greenhouse Gas Enthusiasts..


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

adagio said:


> This global warming thing has become "religion" and as far as I'm concerned I find the radicals as scary as the right wing religious nuts.


Becoming a religion, quite literally. 
http://www.arkofhope.org/#

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

IronMac said:


> Really? Did you bother listening to the interview? Someone in this thread put in a link to CanadaFreePress which, itself, has an audio link to the interview.


Yes I heard it live, stormed off like a child being sent to his room when Oakley asked him about the nay sayers to the global warming situation.

Sorry here you go...
http://www.640toronto.com/john_oakley/john_oakley_audio.cfm?rem=64671&jor=64671#video



IronMac said:


> Of course, that probably won't change your beliefs...


And what are those exactly?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Where there are scientists, there will always be dissent, but the scientific community is uncharacteristically harmonious on this aspect of the climate change issue.


They are characteristically harmonious in their pursuit of funding.




bryanc said:


> Finally, as I have pointed out before, even from a scientifically naive perspective there are only a few possibilities: 1) the scientists are wrong and climate change is not occurring, 2) Climate change is occurring, but the scientists are wrong and it's not our fault. 3) The scientists are right, but it's too late to do anything about it. And 4) the scientists are right, and reducing our GHG emissions will reduce the impact of the changes.


How about: "Climate change is occurring. It is normal for the climate to change."



bryanc said:


> So, in a nutshell, we've got to switch to renewable energy anyway, and there is compelling evidence that there may be a very high price to pay for doing it later rather than sooner.


But the evidence is not compelling, and market forces--not some enviro/religious cabal--should dictate when it is time to move to other sources of energy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacGuiver, the Ark of Life is just the tip of this eco-religious iceberg.

What I find so incredible is that I watch EhMacers demanding that religious views should hold no sway over public affairs, and then demand that this eco-Faith be allowed to remake society.

All of the elements are there:

* the urgency of the appeal--the End is Near!
* the division of camps into believers and "Deniers"
* the punishment--"You'll all fry if you don't believe. Hellfire will be your reward."
* the sacrifice--just give up your greedy capitalist ways.
* the Papal indulgence--carbon credits and offsets.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Adagio then why bother to ask questions  I gave you a couple of answers you asked why? - are you denying the validity of those answers?

'Bout as cleareyed and reality as "no concensus. - what horsepucky is that.

The WORLD is gearing up on a war footing and you've got your head buried along with the flat earthers.

If you say you've get a science background you sure as hell are not showing it buying into outright tabloid crap like that Durkin production.
Pretty dubious bunch of fellow travellers you've aligned with.

•••

Can't defend your views MF??? of course, you never could....just that ol right wing "gut feeling" at work I guess.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

JumboJones said:


> Yes I heard it live, stormed off like a child being sent to his room when Oakley asked him about the nay sayers to the global warming situation.
> 
> Sorry here you go...
> http://www.640toronto.com/john_oakley/john_oakley_audio.cfm?rem=64671&jor=64671#video
> ...


How dare they question Suzuki, Canada's preeminent authority on global warming. He has a PHD in Zoology don't you know.  

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

IronMac said:


> B. Death threats? What death threats? I'll throw down a challenge..show us three cases of death threats.


Would this qualify?


> Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.
> advertisement
> 
> One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> The WORLD is gearing up on a war footing and you've got your head buried along with the flat earthers...Pretty dubious bunch of fellow travellers you've aligned with.


Hear that Adagio. It's WAR and you've identified yourself with the wrong side, so MacDoc can't guarantee your safety when things really start shaking.

I don't suppose anyone of "the Faith" could make the threat to "Deniers" any clearer.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Adagio then why bother to ask questions  I gave you a couple of answers you asked why? - are you denying the validity of those answers?
> 
> 'Bout as cleareyed and reality as "no concensus. - what horsepucky is that.
> 
> ...


You know MacDoc, I'm just so sick of the propaganda you continue to spread here.

You act like some know-it-all intellectual when in reality, you are some intellectually driven knumbskull preaching your very own brand of a religion you claim to despise. After all, your version of GHGs have obviously become a religion to you.

Geez, either get it together or shut up about flat earthers. You're begining to look like one yourself.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I don't understand why interpretation of global warming falls along political lines. This shouldn't be a political issue. It is a scientific issue.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> You know MacDoc, I'm just so sick of the propaganda you continue to spread here.


As opposed to what exactly?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> As opposed to what exactly?


The truth. Exactly. Not his personal band wagon.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macfury said:


> MacGuiver, the Ark of Life is just the tip of this eco-religious iceberg.


Interesting thing with this "Ark of Life" and the "earth charter" it holds (referred to as the new 10 commandments for mankind) is its very existence came about at the hands of non other than Canada's own Ontario hydro occultist Maurice Strong and former Soviet leader Gorbachev. Strong was instrumental in the creation of a New Age occultist meca in Colorado called the Baca. http://www.manitou.org/MI/mi_index.php

This is from the Manitou Institute mission statement:

preserve wildlife and the natural environment through the
Manitou Habitat Conservation Program; and

develop and support programs for youth and adults, which promote environmental awareness, earth stewardship and sustainability such as Earth Origins Seed Project;

*advocate and support the preservation, teaching and practice of the world's wisdom traditions, sacred arts, ancient healing and medicinal sciences.*

I have a suspicion key players like Strong may be trying to extend that mission statement beyond the boundaries of the Baca Ranch. Strong was also a key player behind the Rio Summit that hatched the Kyoto accord. There are some deeply mysterious characters dominant in the political wing of the global warming movement with questionable agendas.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Rex Murphy had a column in the Globe and Mail back on April 24, 2004, called "Praise the Green God from Whom All Blessings Flow" where he laid out why the environmental movement is more of a religion than anything.



> “Praise the green god from whom all blessings flow….” This is a secular age; but the religious impulse is powerful and tenacious. If it is diverted from its traditional channels, or deliberately denied, it will find new ways of expression and new modes of doctrine.
> 
> Environmentalism answers many needs. Literally, any movement whose goal is to save the earth is evangelical to its green roots.
> 
> ...


----------



## ncoffey (Apr 6, 2005)

A lot of what has been posted has nothing to do with whether or not human activity is contributing to warming effects that may end up being harmful. Portraying things as an us versus them battle helps nobody and only contributes more to the adversarial nature of the debate.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

and it was once thought cigarette smoke, primary and secondary, didn't pose much of a health risk

let's see now: put something into your mouth, light it, inhale chemical laden fumes deeply, exhale for others to enjoy

and how many years did it take for the cigarette makers and their lawyers and lobbyists to finally admitting it was killing people?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good I'm very glad I'm getting under your skin - because ignorance and stupidity needs outing in this.

Did you email Dr. Keith?? - tell him how his "propaganda is so wildly wrong" that he thinks GHG have to be ELIMINATED for the sake of his kids and within their lifetime. Eliminated...not capped, reduced, ..eliminated.

Fortunately senior leaders even in the foot draggers categories are getting it figured out.

Got that list of "neutral" reading sources ready????
Would that be the tabloids?

If you don't like being called a flat earther then show some sense instead of flat out blind ignorance.

•••

Here MF - stuff this where the sun doesn't shine........



> MSNBC staff and news service reports
> Updated: 8:06 p.m. CT March 1, 2007
> 
> UNITED NATIONS - Human-induced global warming poses as much danger to the world as war, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Thursday as he urged the United States to take the lead in the fight against global warming.
> ...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

130 Nations,6 years and 2500 scientists and you can't get your head out of the sand ....



> Climate Change: Case Closed
> Friday, Feb. 02, 2007 By BRYAN WALSH
> 
> *The debate on global warming is over.*
> ...


http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1584992,00.html


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

I find it quite astounding that this issue has aroused such sharply polarised camps.

If it weren't so important a matter, it would be worthy of Monty Python.

The folk who are vehemently anti- remind me of the smokers of yesteryear who would offer the sage advice that a relative who had smoked 60 a day since he'd been 11 years old finally died peacefully at the age of 100. "There's nothing in it. It's a conspiracy - load of rubbish"

I despair (sometimes) at the anti-scientific, and science-deficient sentiments that are so attractive to great swathes of the admass. This, combined with the dirty machinations of big business and our political masters, muddies the waters so much that sensible, rational debate is virtually impossible.

I also find it amusing that, roughly speaking, the anti-s come from within the right wing of the political spectrum.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah Snapple - so ironic that some of the exact same characters in the smoking "debate" are still the same purveyors of nonsense here.
Fred Singer notably. The whole Phlllip Morris connection I find hilarious - indeed were it not such a serious issue it would Monty Python scale humour.

Fool me once, oh do it again and again and again......


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> The folk who are vehemently anti- remind me of the smokers of yesteryear who would offer the sage advice that a relative who had smoked 60 a day since he'd been 11 years old finally died peacefully at the age of 100. "There's nothing in it. It's a conspiracy - load of rubbish"


i find the comparison chilling
i'm equally astounded that others don't


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Macfury said:


> "Climate change is occurring. It is normal for the climate to change."


Granted it's been a while since I talked to any of my profs/sciency friends/etc, but from I understand it's not the change (as climate change is a naturally occurring thing) itself which is the problem, but rather the rapidity with which it's been happening.

In essence, there are three questions to ask people.

1. Does climate change occur naturally? _yes_
2. Does human activity have an effect on climate change? _yes_
3. How much effect does human activity have on climate change? _i don't know the answer to this question_


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I don't understand why interpretation of global warming falls along political lines. This shouldn't be a political issue. It is a scientific issue.


It is perplexing, but how about this guess:
Along the lines of Patrick Moore, the deeply political environmentalist left grabbed this issue pretty readily to push their agenda. Along the lines of basic "less government" and "less tax" is good individualist politics, a problem that fundamentally requires government action is detestable. So, at the extremes, it looks very much like a right-left issue and the screamers get the best coverage. 

I think (hope) that for most it is simply a matter of difference of opinion over how much to do and how to do it. Normal political differences, in other words.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

PosterBoy said:


> Granted it's been a while since I talked to any of my profs/sciency friends/etc, but from I understand it's not the change (as climate change is a naturally occurring thing) itself which is the problem, but rather the rapidity with which it's been happening.
> 
> In essence, there are three questions to ask people.
> 
> ...


but, 1 and 2 is worse than 1 or 2

it's like living in a city with air pollution and smoking
on their own, neither is good, but together they are worse for you than on their own, for your respiratory system

note: i understand that air pollution is man made


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

For all those "global warming isn't happening" or "global warming is not man's fault people", you need to get your head's examined quick.

Climate change is happening. The effects can be absolutely devastating. Read up on ice ages. They happen in cycles, and will happen again. No more patio weather in Canada!

The effect of over 6 billion people chewing up natural resources on Earth does have an effect on our climate. To say that we are inconsequential is absurd. There is too much scientific evidence to prove otherwise. There will always be "evidence" to contradict the the "so called facts". Just like there is "evidence" that the Earth is only 7,000 years old (according to the Bible), the Holocaust didn't happen, aliens from other planets have visited Earth, God is real, evolution is bunk, smoking doesn't cause cancer, and more.

Even if the skeptics of global warming take their best case scenario of "we didn't do it, it's natural", should we not all work to prevent the next natural ice age, or are you going to be fine living under a few thousands metres of ice?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Yes I heard it live, stormed off like a child being sent to his room when Oakley asked him about the nay sayers to the global warming situation.
> 
> Sorry here you go...
> http://www.640toronto.com/john_oakley/john_oakley_audio.cfm?rem=64671&jor=64671#video
> ...


Your link doesn't work but I heard the interview through the CanadaFreePress link and it certainly doesn't sound like he stormed off.

Of course, that probably won't change your belief that the entire GHG movement is closed to dissent.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

I'd like to ask people to look around and see what sort of world we would currently have if it were not for the "environmental movement"? What would happen if everything was left up to "market forces"?

Would we have flooded all of our riverine valleys for hydro power? Cheap source of electricity!
Would all of our lakes be dead from acid rain? It's only a few fish and they're not worth much!
Would we be recycling? It's cheaper to bury that stuff in the countryside!
Would we still be using lead in our paints? It's longer lasting and so much more economical!
Would we be shipping our water down to the US? Hey, let's increase our export economy!

Some people talk about worshipping at the environmental altar, well, there seem to be others who are willing to sell their souls for the almighty dollar. :greedy:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

guytoronto said:


> Even if the skeptics of global warming take their best case scenario of "we didn't do it, it's natural", should we not all work to prevent the next natural ice age, or are you going to be fine living under a few thousands metres of ice?


That is an interesting idea, but wouldn't work under what now passes for the environmental movement, in that it would require the burning of fossil fuels to hold the Ice Age back. 

This isn't about results--the idea that we could actually "cool" the Earth is bordering on the absurd already. It's a behaviour modification exercise. If we followed the GHG rhetoric to a "T" we would find 10 years from now, that the movement would declare either:

1) Look, it's working, we must do more of this! or
2) Look, it isn't working, we started too late. We must do more of this!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> The truth. Exactly. Not his personal band wagon.


And who is telling 'the truth' SINC exactly? You? 

Isn't the nature of this forum all about people voicing their opinions or _'personal band wagons' ?_

Just because you don't like or agree with it doesn't make it wrong. 

Enough derailing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oh sorry... 

MacDoc declared the debate "over" for the 40th time this year. This sort of talk angers him. Watch _The Great Global Warming Swindle_ to see how the IPCC--the Church of the Green House Gas--gains its supposed consensus.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

IronMac - reply #27? Or do you just like to ask questions, not answer them.



MacDoc said:


> 130 Nations,6 years and *2500 scientists* and you can't get your head out of the sand ....


Raise you


> Signers of this petition so far include *2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists* (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.
> 
> Signers of this petition also include *5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences* (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.
> 
> ...


http://www.oism.org/pproject/pproject.htm#37


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Voyager: Since it comes from the United Nations it has a sort of holy blessing in MacDoc's mind. Anything that comes from the UN is true--provided that it meets certain political standards.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Oh sorry...
> 
> MacDoc declared the debate "over" for the 40th time this year. This sort of talk angers him. Watch _The Great Global Warming Swindle_ to see how the IPCC--the Church of the Green House Gas--gains its supposed consensus.


Is the debate then about MacDoc and you?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Is the debate then about MacDoc and you?


Certainly not. I just noted that he had declared the debate "over" again and called upon the holy hordes of the IPCC--again. Had he not posted there, I wouldn't have thought about him.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

This seems to be the only response that have any meaning. Everything else feels a bit like chest thumping and venom spitting. But I guess that was the desired effect.



ncoffey said:


> A lot of what has been posted has nothing to do with whether or not human activity is contributing to warming effects that may end up being harmful. Portraying things as an us versus them battle helps nobody and only contributes more to the adversarial nature of the debate.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Portraying things as an us versus them battle helps nobody and only contributes more to the adversarial nature of the debate.


In many ways I suspect that the Global Warming contingent is encouraging this. I certainly am shocked to hear people being referred to as "Flat Earthers" and "Deniers" yet this is now the common parlance among Global Warming Theory supporters.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Voyager said:


> IronMac - reply #27? Or do you just like to ask questions, not answer them.


Sorry, forgot to address that. Good find on Ball and if you find more death threats bring them up.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Macfury said:


> This isn't about results--the idea that we could actually "cool" the Earth is bordering on the absurd already.


The moment you discount any possibility that humankind has an effect on climate, then, the debate is over for you.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> In many ways I suspect that the Global Warming contingent is encouraging this. I certainly am shocked to hear people being referred to as "Flat Earthers" and "Deniers" yet this is now the common parlance among Global Warming Theory supporters.


Sticking to the microcosm of ehMac, what of your comments pointed towards eco-evangelicalism? Is this just you innocently reacting to all the name calling? Or could it be an attack? The title of your thread is meant to bait people is it not? No it's not just the global warming contingent. It's you too.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Here is some info on the participants in this film:

Dr. Fred Singer who was employed by the Big Tobacco to argue that there is no conclusive evidence of negative health effects from smoking during the U.S. Congressional hearings on the subject.

Others are here:

http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/the-great-channel-four-swindle/

One participant says that he was duped into participating:



> Climate scientist 'duped to deny global warming'
> 
> 
> Ben Goldacre and David Adam
> ...


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html

And, for additional analysis:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/

I can't take credit for the above links for they were provided by someone else on another forum.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

IronMac said:


> The moment you discount any possibility that humankind has an effect on climate, then, the debate is over for you.


I don't discount the possibility. I don't believe the burden of proof has been met to justify the many controls people wish to put in place.



Mr. Jimmy said:


> Sticking to the microcosm of ehMac, what of your comments pointed towards eco-evangelicalism?


Sticking to the microcosm of EhMac, I have noted religious evangelists being slammed with greater vigour here. I also note an alarming similarity between the religious behaviour decried in the microcosm of EhMac and the prosletyzers of Global Warming Theory both within EhMac and outside of it.



Mr. Jimmy said:


> The title of your thread is meant to bait people is it not? No it's not just the global warming contingent. It's you too.


The title of the thread is the name of the documentary, not anything I made up.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

IronMac said:


> One participant says that he was duped into participating


What had Wunsch intended to say?


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I don't believe the burden of proof has been met to justify the many controls people wish to put in place.


That's the problem. I rather think there is a gap (and a growing one) between 'the burden of proof' and the controls being suggested/enacted. One of my earlier comments alluded to this ... _the dirty machinations of big business and our political masters_. An example: Our Glorious Chancellor of the Exchequer, in December '06, slapped an increased surcharge on airline flights, without warning the airline industry in advance. Apart from the resulting chaos, it's hard to see how this sudden tranche of revenue for the government is going to help ameliorate the effects of climate change. It's opportunistic. It's a cash-grab, a raid, under the guise of no more than a cursory nod in the direction of the climate-change debate. It won't have any great impact on the numbers of air passengers. It is precisely the sort of thing that will degrade the debate, and reduce it to a slanging match between the ayes and the noes. It will only serve to confuse the issue in the minds of the public.

Meanwhile the climatologists continue to try to make scientific sense out of the evidence of a changing climate.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Macfury said:


> What had Wunsch intended to say?


Something along these lines?



> He said he believes it is "an almost inescapable conclusion" that "if man adds excess CO2 to the atmosphere, the climate will warm".


http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

What I know:
The earth is cooler than the average for the last 10,000 years right now;
The Little Ice Age was about 400 years ago and the Earth has been warming since then;
Temperatures during the Little Ice Age were consistent with the normal low temperature experienced in previous cool periods;
That that warming is consistent with geological history of the Earth and is expected;
That the normal high temperature was last recorded around 1000 years ago;
That at that time Greenland was inhabited by Vikings who employed agriculture and animal husbandry;
That settlements on Greenland had to be abandoned around 1400 AD because of the advancement of ice sheets during the Little Ice Age;
That some of the Viking gardens of Greenland are only beginning to reveal themselves today as the ice sheet recedes;
There is also a normal, repeatable sudden rise in temperature, which is consistently reveled in ice core samples from the Canadian Arctic and just recently confirmed in Antarctican drilling, in the geological record that takes between 20 and 70 years to complete;
That once completed, the temperature after that sudden rise is equal to the historical high average temperature;
And all of this is consistent with 3,000 years of recorded Human History as well as the entire Geological record.

That Human Activity adds roughly 5.5 GigaTons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year (note: agriculture and livestock contributions are included as human activity);
That Plant Activity adds roughly 60 GigaTons per year;
That the Upper Oceans add roughly 200 GigaTons per year;
That each emitter is also an absorber; Humans absorb 2.5 GigaTons/yr; and Plant and Oceans can emit less than they add or absorb more than they add in any given year;
That the Upper Oceans also exchange CO2 with the lower Oceans, who happen to store some stupidly huge number of times more CO2 than the Upper Oceans;
The Upper Oceans and Lower Oceans eat and **** CO2 (ie exchange between themselves but not the atmosphere) in levels that are both staggering in comparison to our contribution and remarkably in equilibrium;
That there is roughly 300 GigaTons of atmospheric CO2 exchanged in each year (emitted and absorbed);
That as CO2 increases the level of plant growth and resistance to disease increases; more CO2 in the air means more food and faster plant growth;
That CO2 levels during the time of the dinosaurs, when far more plant growth thrived on the Earth, had atmospheric CO2 levels 5x to 10x higher than now (fossil fuels is stored CO2 from those plants which is why CO2 is re-released when we burn it now).

That Climate is a chaotic system that cannot be modeled or predicted;
Like all Chaotic Systems, no two events (any two years or days) can be the same;
That in a Chaotic System, it is impossible to know what effect a tiny contributor will have on the whole system;
That in a Chaotic System, it is impossible to say that any event, including huge ones, will not be absorbed into an equilibrium;
As one example of the level of Equilibrium built into the system, as the Ocean Temperature rises, it absorbs more atmospheric CO2 than it emits, and as it falls, it releases more than it absorbs; the Oceans almost perfectly moderate atmospheric CO2;
Like all Chaotic Systems, past results cannot be said to predict future events;
If we allocate "worse" and "better" to aspects of a chaotic system, then one year will always be "worse" or "better" than another, but both are normal;
That in a Global Warming situation, North American weather must become less volatile and in a Global Cooling situation more volatile (weather severity is based in the temperature difference between the Equator and the Poles, and Poles warm up most in Warming Conditions);
That we have seen a decrease in Hurricane Severity (average and maximum wind speeds are lower) and Occourance (rate of 1 less hurricane every 30 years; currently the southern US experiences 3 fewer hurricanes per year on average than was normal for 1900) over the last 100 years;
That that decrease is consistent with long term forecasts that debunk manmade contributions to Global Warming as much as it is consistent with short term forecasts that support it.

That all theories of manmade CO2 contribution to Global Warming depend on data from 1900 to the present only;
That if data from before 1900 is included, no matter how far back you go, what we are experiencing now is perfectly normal and human activity does not seem to add anything or change anything;
That the water level in our Oceans is rising (11 mm the last century; ie Global Warming Advocate argument);
That that rate of rise is the lowest since the Little Ice Age; ie the rate is slowing, not accelerating (taking data from before 1900; ie "This Is Normal" Advocate argument);
That 10,000 years ago the Oceans were 14 meters lower (read that again, if you need to get a handle on what is "normal" for the Earth);
That Advocates of Global Warming rely on us having the attention span of a Spaniel, so that we forget "normal" pre-industrial * weather events like those of 1929 and afterward, which were much more sever than today's, and that actually lasted into the 1940's but since everyone got rich off the war we forgot about the weather part;
That our Sun, as it ages, is becoming hotter;
That climate conditions are not reversable.

* Pre-Industrial in the sense that even in developed countries the majority of the population was rural, most rural and some urban residents had no electricity and few automobiles or tractors. The German Army in WWII, the most mechanized force the world had ever seen, had 3 of 4 soldiers reliant completely on horse transport for themselves and all their equipment.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Thanks gordguide. A voice of wisdom in the darkness.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WEATHER/03/15/warmest.winter.reut/index.html

what about the hole in the ozone letting in more UV which penetrates the oceans furthur and deeper thus warming the oceans and great lakes for that matter...

http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Hey, Gordguide, if only it were that simple! :lmao:


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Wow GG, hitting the nail on the head there.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

"That the behaviour that triggered that change is not Fossil Fuel emissions but instead the worldwide destruction of forestry and vegetation;"

MY sentiments EXACTLY!!!!!!!

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

imactheknife said:


> what about the hole in the ozone letting in more UV which penetrates the oceans furthur and deeper thus warming the oceans and great lakes for that matter...


We should ban CFCs--an actual and identifiable pollutant--to deal with the ozone hole. 

Oh, wait, we already did that.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

gordguide said:


> That Climate is a chaotic system that cannot be modeled or predicted;


Nothing like assuming the conclusion. It's good for the soul*.

*If you assume you have one.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Actually efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses are worthwhile as a side effect would be reducing the various pollutants that create smog and acid rain. 

Sending money to Russia will not solve anything.

My personal pet hatred is the Flourescant light bulb scam. We have 1 lamp that runs 12 hours a day and is flourescent. The remaining average a total of 2 hours a day total. Do the math I would save about $3 a year which would not even replace the 1 bulb a year that burns out. On top of that each of these bulbs would contain Mercury which will eventually find its way to the ocean and contaminate salmon and tuna. So far no one is reclaiming the Mercury or the Phosphors from these bulbs.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I also happen to find the light emitted from fluorescents to be aesthetically inferior.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

That post got really out of hand, even for me, so I'm breaking it up into two parts:

What I believe:
That human activity has had little net effect on the climate;
That changing our levels of CO2 emissions will have little or no effect on future Global temperature trends;
That even though I believe we have had little effect, there has been a trigger of the sudden warming event; ie the sudden warming that historically takes 20 to 70 years (the little lines in the ice record are not clear enough to nail it closer than that);
That our efforts to stop CO2 emissions will have no effect whatsoever and that temps will rise to the historical average high sometime during this century, and whether it's us or just the Earth doing what it likes to do, is irrelevant.

I have no doubt whatsoever that we are in a warming trend, and even if we are not, that one is coming before the next 200 years are over.

Personally, It doesn't bother me that the current hysteria is driven by an old agenda; namely the 60's Ecology Movement and all of it's associated belief systems.

I'm all for Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (in that order of priority) and conservation of non-renewable resources, no matter what they may be.

I'm also for enriching Canada and Canadians, so don't think I don't feel there is a balance and don't mistake my enthusiasm for Green Policies for buying the whole program. I believe in exploiting resources as needed, but without wasting or squandering them.

It really bugs me, however, when the Global Warming folks imply that we can stop, or (pardon my laughing out loud here) reverse the warming trend (or cooling trend, or SuperNova Of The Sun trend, or whatever).

Snowball's chance in Hell, and I'll even let you wait for another Ice Age before we drop the snowball into Hades to settle the bet. Note that that is not just my sentiment, or just the sentiment of the 18,000 Degreed Scientists who signed the petition warning that there is no concrete proof that rising atmospheric CO2 has anything to do with current temperature trends, but the position of the very scientists whose work those who advocate CO2 reduction depends for it's rationale.

It is simply our own concept of self-importance; it exists only in our minds. As far as the Planet is concerned, we are merely an annoyance, easily discounted and wholly irrelevant. What we fear is change, not the planet's health. Don't kid yourselves. If the Planet wants to change, and geological history tells us not only is that likely, it's inevitable, then it's going to change. We may as well stomp up and down in unison and hold our breath until we turn blue, for all the good it will do.

Let them play in their sandbox; if you really want to do something about Global Warming, start planning your future and the future of your children on the inevitable results:
More plant growth;
Moderated weather;
More activity at the poles;
Don't panic over the water levels in the Oceans. The Oceans are not one level anyway (which is why some Pacific Islands are underwater today that were not before; there are other areas on Earth that have less Ocean levels than 200 years ago). But, think twice when you buy waterfront property, just like your grandfather had to and his grandfather before him. No beach, no lake and no shoreline is the same, anywhere on Earth, as it was 100 years ago and that was not the same as it was 200 years ago, and that is NORMAL.

I see a lot of doom and gloom, because the religion requires it, apparently. I don't see much about the possible benefits, and naturally that's because it's heresy to say such things.

We can look to weather conditions on Earth in the period of roughly 900~1300 AD, the last time global temperatures were as high as they will be after this warming phase is complete. We can expect a much improved ability of Africa to feed itself; we can expect increases in agricultural production worldwide. We can also expect a sovereignty battle in the Canadian Arctic as there will be open water there, just as there was almost total freezing the last time a Global Cooling period existed (ask a certain Mr Franklin how that worked for him).

There is what we can all recognize as a political momentum with the Global Warming crowd, and they will fight to maintain that momentum vigorously. I expect nothing less.

In my own experience, I know it's time to have a long, sober look at the evidence when any group or movement starts lying about the facts, misrepresenting the data, and shout down the skeptics, because the end justifies the means.

A reasonable answer to a real problem doesn't require such dogmatic responses to criticism; if you have a good position and can support it, then we will accept it at it's face value. I think they have some good points about our environment that are worth addressing. The problem is they have gone as far as they can with that, so now we have a new boogeyman to destroy. But, like all boogeymen, he doesn't exist.

We have, without a doubt, reached that in the Global Warming debate, so naturally it's time to have a look at the data they use to back it up. And, it's full of holes, actually.

It has all the hallmarks of a religion; blind faith is required of it's proponents. That always signals a need for a long, sober look at the situation and the evidence.

This is not unusual, and actually we see it in every debate; need I remind you of how sure everyone, in the US at least, was about the Iraq War in 2002. But, it does signal a need to separate the Mob from the Facts that they stand upon, and reflect on the true nature of the situation.

And remember, for all the wrong reasons, it's a good, virtuous thing to reduce, reuse, and recycle.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

There's got to be more to it than that, surely, GG. :lmao:

Sorry to be flippant, but have you let the world's climatologists in on your secrets yet?

I think you're really a Climate Warming Sceptic at heart, you know.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

ALL Scientists are skeptics; it's in the job description. I'm only going by what they tell me; this is not some secret to Climatologists; it's the stuff of their own conclusions and research.

They write it down and publish it, and although it seems silly and naive of them, they do that hoping someone might read it.

It's sad, really that they were squandering their time in graduate school while those who really know what is going on were studying pop culture and spending millions of dollars hiring firms who specialize in the manipulation of public opinion.

I don't have it on hand, because I've read it here and there over a long time, being the curious bastard that I am, but I will try to dig up a few links for those who are interested; please by all means come to your own conclusions.

It is clear to me that buying into the whole thing as presented requires that you ignore some strong evidence that this is all business as usual, and I can clearly see several generations, perhaps not intentional, of "dumbing down the facts" so that it can be presented to a worldwide audience. Each "simplification" takes some truth out of it so that, in the end, there is not much left. Maybe that's all they're guilty of, but I suspect some know better and for that I can't forgive them. Sorry; way I am and all that.

I know it's old fashioned and probably a complete waste of my time, but I somehow acquired this habit of reading the texts and papers of the guys we hired to study -pdf 154 kb- this stuff instead of hollywood movies, the well paid, somewhat cynical political agenda of a man who once aspired * to rule the most powerful nation on earth, television shows, and political groups with pre-determined agendas. The UN's IPCC reports are so blatently politized they have lost any credibility whatsoever amongst the very scientists who participated in the reports themselves. I'm funny that way, I guess.

" ...
I was approached to join the IPCC in 1992. The first question by the scientist who approached me was to ask if I supported reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. I said I was not certain about that. On that basis he withdrew the invitation. I was at a scientific conference and the fellow was going around looking for recruits for the IPCC.
..." -Douglas Hoyt; Colorado University

I meant it when I posted "what I believe"; I don't expect everyone to agree. But, there is very much a debate and there is very much a serious attempt to create the impression of a scientific consensus where not only does one not exist, but one cannot exist because what they claim is known _cannot be known_ unless you abandon the scientific method and ignore the contradictory evidence. Some seem to take it a step further, giving ambiguous evidence credence it has no right to possess.

I have no doubt that those who think that change must be made today, believe that change must be made today. The trouble is, "belief" has a place in science, but that place is not at the spot properly occupied by a conclusion.

* Scientists and Engineers for Change are the "group of 48 Nobel Prize Winning Scientists" who, in a widely publicized letter dated 21 June 2004, accused President Bush and his administration of "ignoring the scientific consensus on critical issues such as global climate change." They are a registered, tax free "527 group"  formed to help elect Al Gore as President in 2004. They have also said, and been widely quoted in the press and in An Inconvenient Truth, such things as " ... "The administration tends to pick and choose what it's willing to listen to ..." ; accused Bush of a "Soviet-style" handling of science policy, and " ... "The Bush administration has been a disaster for the environment. They're playing Russian roulette by not signing the Kyoto Accord. If we wait until there's unequivocal proof that this is the cause of global climate change, it will be too late. ..."

Now, you may believe they are just 48 concerned scientists who feel a need to back their candidate; I have no problem with that. I do have a problem when their letters and press releases are cited as proof of scientific consensus on Global Warming in a movie narrated by their candidate, especially when a petition with 18,000 signatures of B.Sc, M.Sc and Doctorates, with Nobel Prize winners also amongst them, exists that contradicts their position.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Coming soon, to a movie theatre near you:

"Swindlers List: The Great Climate Con."


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Sounds better than the movie currently being played in the media, but of course fear sells more newspapers.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

gordguide said:


> Note that that is not just my sentiment, or just the sentiment of the 18,000 Degreed Scientists who signed the petition warning that there is no concrete proof that rising atmospheric CO2 has anything to do with current temperature trends, but the position of the very scientists whose work those who advocate CO2 reduction depends for it's rationale.


That petition was from 1998 or so. The IPCC's language has also changed over to the past decade to saying that it's almost a "consensus" or "certainty" that mankind is changing the climate.



gordguide said:


> It is simply our own concept of self-importance; it exists only in our minds.


This statement is wilful ignorance of man's history on this planet.



gordguide said:


> start planning your future and the future of your children on the inevitable results:
> More plant growth;


Wrong, a study just released in February indicated that there will not be any additional plant growth. Their study is based on conditions in the wild, not conditions in a greenhouse with additional carbon dioxide in the air.



gordguide said:


> Moderated weather;


This is still to be decided.



gordguide said:


> More activity at the poles;


No idea just yet.



gordguide said:


> Don't panic over the water levels in the Oceans. The Oceans are not one level anyway (which is why some Pacific Islands are underwater today that were not before; there are other areas on Earth that have less Ocean levels than 200 years ago).


Wrong, studies have shown that water levels have increased and may increase even more even faster. Your statements will be cold comfort to those countries who lose shorelines and even go out of existence.



gordguide said:


> We can look to weather conditions on Earth in the period of roughly 900~1300 AD, the last time global temperatures were as high as they will be after this warming phase is complete. We can expect a much improved ability of Africa to feed itself;


Wrong, increases of heat will only dry out the continent leading to increased drought and famine. 



gordguide said:


> we can expect increases in agricultural production worldwide.


Wrong, no proof that there will be any increases at all. Look up to Canada's north...or north of Toronto...they don't call it the Canadian Shield for nothing.




gordguide said:


> In my own experience, I know it's time to have a long, sober look at the evidence when any group or movement starts lying about the facts, misrepresenting the data, and shout down the skeptics,


Actually, it's the people in the documentary who seem to be the ones lying about the facts and misrepresenting the data.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

yeah, lets go farm the tundra in northern Alberta....great farmland up there when things warm up...oh and there will be no water to supply the farmland but by then we should have genetically modified wheat etc to grow with no water


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

gordguide said:


> I meant it when I posted "what I believe"; I don't expect everyone to agree. But, there is very much a debate and there is very much a serious attempt to create the impression of a scientific consensus where not only does one not exist, but one cannot exist because what they claim is known _cannot be known[i/] unless you abandon the scientific method and ignore the contradictory evidence.
> 
> 
> _


_

My understanding is that the IPCC has never said that the observed recent warming is 100% human-induced, or that even the observed enhanced warming (i.e., the warming hypothesized to be greater than could be expected from natural causes) was 100% caused by human activity. I thought their most recent position was that it is highly probable that enhanced warming is due to human activities and that the risk of not acting is far greater than not acting given this probabilty. Inherent in this is the aspect that there is a possibility they are wrong. However, based on the potential risk, or until conclusive evidence suggests otherwise, it would be wise to reduce GHG emissions. 

I think there is a level of spin on both sides of the debate and inbetween. 

My two cents._


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... Wrong, a study just released in February indicated that there will not be any additional plant growth. ..."

Your study, my study. Consensus?

" ... That petition was from 1998 or so. ..."

Ah, yes. Of course. When talking about climate change over centuries, millennia, whole geological periods, 9 years is far, far too long a period of time to be rehashing the same, tired old opinions, which, by the way, are still held by the signatories. When rebutting 48 openly political scientists, 18,000 is clearly a draw. More consensus, obviously. My bad.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?id=12570

It is only part of a plan and it has its flaws but it is a good start. Exactly the sort of thing that should have been proposed around 1997, implemented by 2000 and polished by now based on years of experience. But that's the past. This, in our current political context, is good enough for what it covers. 

It has the basic elements of a mechanism to address provincial issues, a medium-term price profile, offsets and trading mechanisms, looks beyond 2012 and, to a limited extent (too limited) keep sticky fingers away. It delegates sticky fingers instead of cutting them off.

It gets the official Beej seal of exasperated lower standards for approval. beejacon

Now how about all the stuff that isn't covered under the plan?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

gordguide said:


> Ah, yes. Of course. When talking about climate change over centuries, millennia, whole geological periods, 9 years is far, far too long


You're mixing up the timelines of the physical versus our understanding. Science's understanding, still subject to uncertainty, can and has advanced rapidly. This happens once in a while.

But it doesn't matter. Once you assume that it is unknowable, the rest is just smoke and mirrors because, with that single assumption, there's no reason to do anything about it and all related science, because it studies an unknowable, is useless. Neat little assumption.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

gordguide is dead right on two things.

Man is not causing global warming and man can do nothing to stop natural cycles like global warming.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Here's the IPCC policy summary.

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

here's the "follow the money" source 



> *Scientists Offered Money to Undermine IPCC Report*
> February 2, 2007 · Filed under Global Warming Science by Craig Mackintosh
> 
> The Guardian has an alarming story about an Exxon-Mobil funded lobby group offering money to scientists in return for their combatting the just-released IPCC report.
> ...





> Joint Science Academies’ Statement:
> Global Response to Climate Change
> 
> National Academies 7jun2005
> ...


*130 countries - 11 National Science Academies - 2500 scientists*

*“The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline.*

read the damn report and have some respect.  
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

••

GG - believe what you want but from your comments it would appear your reading is out of date against current information to draw those conclusions.

and please - the Oregon Petition is not something I'd expect YOU to refer to as a valid basis for skepticism.

Indeed scale and timing of impact and what positive feedback ( or negative ) anthropogenic forcing will engender is wide ranging.
Denying the forcing is/has occurred and that the GHG increase is human generated.....pretty hard position to take given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The problem with a drive-by-smear argument is that GG's Gore-connection smear is as valid as other smears. Let's stick to science, to the best of our modest abilities, and logic, to the best of our willingness to use it.

GHG religious fundamentalists do more harm than good, as per the usual result when that type grabs hold of something valid and tries to turn it into their own flag.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> The problem with a drive-by-smear argument is that GG's Gore-connection smear is as valid as other smears. Let's stick to science, to the best of our modest abilities, and logic, to the best of our willingness to use it.


But when science is wrong and fools follow it like gospel, they do more harm than good.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Exactly, Sinc. So why do you clap when clearly flawed scientific summaries are posted that require little footwork to find the egregious errors? Read both sides including rebuttals, then clap appropriately. "Gut" won't do it for this.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I clap because I do not believe that science is right in this case. I'm sticking with the "natural cycle" theory, and am most likely as right as the so called scientists who are screaming the sky is falling. The alarm bells I hear are from knee jerk reaction scientists who should just shut up.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Human-induced global warming does not in any way preclude natural cycles.

Fires occur naturally. That doesn't mean that we can't start them too.

And no, the vast majority of global warming projections are not apocalypse scenarios assuming that the end of the world is nigh. Threats to modern civilisation are things like asteroids and, to a lesser extent, nuclear war. That does not mean, however, that we just wander along this silly path confident that, if the end of the world is not nigh, then it's A-OK.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MasterBlaster said:


> And Canada never had Slavery either...


I admitted that mistake the minute I realized I made it, so take a hike MB. Living in the past is likely to cause global warming.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> I admitted that mistake


An ability that not everyone has. Good on you. 

Not to derail, but refresh my memory: after 1867 or just before?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Long time back, but as I recall I stated there was no slavery in Canada. I was proven wrong in a very short time and I retracted it and admitted I did not know that. End of story, except of course to MB, but considering the source, I could care less.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I vaguely recall that. Was there slavery in Canada, as opposed to the Canadas? Let's all learn. Gross discrimination by modern standards, sure. Let's get specific and logical, just for fun.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ask MB, he's apparently the resident expert.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Unreliable source? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Canada

Back to GHGs: "I clap because I do not believe that science is right in this case."

Belief is one thing and that's personal, but you seem to cheer on items that fit the belief. If you believe, be done with it. Why delve into implicit commentary on science without looking at the science? That's just grabbing any convenient item that highlights your belief regardless of a deeper look. Not that you'd be unique in doing that.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

gordguide said:


> " ... Wrong, a study just released in February indicated that there will not be any additional plant growth. ..."
> 
> Your study, my study. Consensus?
> 
> ...


A. Where is YOUR study?
B. Yeah, knowledge does move forward you know.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

*Cool, calm voices of reason*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6460635.stm


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Nice article, SQ. Thanks.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Thanks SQ - of course the downside is leaving the polemics to the deniers when the larger public is facing change and need perhaps a bit of passion to undertake it than a sober reminder.

I found this article regarding Lloyds and the insurance industry excellent

For those that are honest enough to question the basis of their "denial" attitude this an exemplary article from a hard headed business leader who was a skeptic....and has had to face the reality.



> *Ten years ago, I was very much a climate change sceptic.* Indeed, I think it’s fair to say that until very recently, world opinion on the subject was sharply divided. But the 10 warmest years on record have all been since 19955. *Within the insurance industry, no-one seriously disputes climate change is happening any more.*
> 
> *The collective evidence says we can no longer remain in denial.* We must stop relying on historical patterns, looking to the future instead. And we must also begin to factor in the increasingly accurate short-term predictions which are available for each season ahead.
> 
> Over the coming years, with warmer sea surface temperatures making windstorm landfall more likely, particularly destructive storms are a likely scenario. We can expect the “storm” season to lengthen, and we will be at risk over a wider geographical area than ever before.


http://www.lloyds.com/News_Centre/B...te_change_-_A_global_insurers_perspective.htm

From a guy and industry whose fortune and existence depends on making the right call on this. It's a good read.

•••

Where I fiind frustration is in separating out the various aspects.

a) *Is climate change happening and will it cause large scale problems many as yet to be indentified?*
That's the easiest to answer yes to yet even there the waters continue to be muddied

b) *Is human activity leading to or triggering all or a large part of the climate change.?*
Not as clear tho the IPCC came down heavily on that 90% likely.
What arises from that is "who cares" - it has to be dealt with/accounted for in some manner as, like Lloyds noted, it's not business as usual anymore. I find it encouraging planning is going forward regardless of the mix of anthropocentric versus "natural cycle" underling triggers. Having "polluters pay" as an underlying principle is in my mind a good thing. We have pretty good antipollution measures for the ocean - now the same must be applied to the atmosphere.

c) * Can we do anything about it?*
That's where the debate rages most fiercely. Once more the IPCC weighs in as do the likes of the Stern Report both saying it's vital.
The fall back position for the honest skeptic might be - hey cleaner air is no bad thing even in itself.
The frustrating part is as with the Montreal Accord on CFCs - what "DIDN'T HAPPEN" due to that successful effort ( we hope ) ....doesn't make news.
So to undertake rather, by comparson, massive restructuring which if successful means "life goes on as usual" no dancing in the streets ala end of WWII is a tough sell.

What I find ironic is that for once industry and most govs seem further along on the "understanding the issue curve" - thanks I think to efforts like Stern and the IPCC than a sizeable portion of the public who are still stranded at point a) or b) and making a lot of noise about it.

On the other hand the "doing something significant" is still in the early stages even in Europe and THAT lags another sizeable portion of the public who simply want to get on with it. And that coterie is also making a lot of noise.

What I'd really like is to dump the finger pointing and debate how best to balance investment in "coping with change" that is clearly here with investment in "prevent it from getting worse".

If reducing energy use and improving clean production of that energy could end up as a satisfactory goal itself - regardless of the "are we causing/can we prevent it debate" - I'd be thrilled.

In some areas I think it's happening already. States and some national govs are simply getting on with it and in some cases doing very well as result.
Wish we were.
Some good signs we might be.

Rant and rave at percieved foolishness all you like but a massive decarbonization effort is in motion iin Canada and elsewhere.
Isn't it a tad more sensible to thoughtfully contribute to this effort ( as Beej has notably ), recognise the reality as Lloyds and other industry and national leaders have, and have some pride in Canada's contribution??


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Beej said:


> Unreliable source? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Canada


The information there seems accurate. Other sites have comparable information.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Belief is one thing and that's personal, but you seem to cheer on items that fit the belief. If you believe, be done with it. Why delve into implicit commentary on science without looking at the science? That's just grabbing any convenient item that highlights your belief regardless of a deeper look. Not that you'd be unique in doing that.


Yes I do, but I suppose the fear mongers who believe the opposite is true have some God given right to cheer on things that support their belief in science? Who gave them the right to do what you imply I cannot do? 

Oh wait, I know. It was the Reverend MacDoc of the Church of Climate Scientology, the head clergyman of fear.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> I clap because I do not believe that science is right in this case. I'm sticking with the "natural cycle" theory.


Spoken like a true religious fanatic. Ignore the science, put faith in your own beliefs.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Who gave them the right to do what you imply I cannot do?


You're probably aware that you can do whatever you please. Including criticise judges.  Just to be clear, I was not implying what you cannot do. 

When a criticism is based on putting forward understood evidence (instead of just cheering based on the "bottom line" matching one's own), the response isn't always in kind. But the response is almost always in kind when the criticism is empty cheering. 

Reminds me of hockey fans critiquing a refs' calls. It's not about whether the calls are correct or not, but that they were against "the team". So why not, instead, actually talk about the items that lead to the call? Because the other side will, quite often, just jeer and boo anyways? I can actually agree with that, but I try (and fail) not to mimic them...unless they just refuse to budge and deal with evidence and analysis. beejacon


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Yes I do, but I suppose the fear mongers who believe the opposite is true have some God given right to cheer on things that support their belief in science? Who gave them the right to do what you imply I cannot do?
> 
> Oh wait, I know. It was the Reverend MacDoc of the Church of Climate Scientology, the head clergyman of fear.


So is the real debate between you and MacDoc then? Perhaps a virtual group hug will dispel the kneejerk reactions being presented in many threads of late.

As my dear old Gran would say, two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> So is the real debate between you and MacDoc then?


I don't suppose any of this is a debate between MacDoc and anyone else in particular. He has a way of presenting his ideas ["I demand you read this link again...and AGAIN and *AGAIN!*--hey buddy, have you read _this_ link?"] to EhMAcers ["Flat Earthers/Deniers]" in a way ["You're all going to fry!!!!] that draws reaction. He's just a very angry fellow.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> When a criticism is based on putting forward understood evidence (instead of just cheering based on the "bottom line" matching one's own), the response isn't always in kind. But the response is almost always in kind when the criticism is empty cheering.


And therein lies the difference between your assessment of the science and mine. I subscribe to the same theories as gordguide and I simply applauded (cheered) him for having the courage to bring forth the other side of the equation, the bottom line being we CANNOT control the weather and anyone who claims we can is a fool. A scientist perhaps, but a fool all the same.

You can now respond in kind.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I don't suppose any of this is a debate between MacDoc and anyone else in particular. He has a way of presenting his ideas ["I demand you read this link again...and AGAIN and *AGAIN!*--hey buddy, have you read _this_ link?"] to EhMAcers ["Flat Earthers/Deniers]" in a way ["You're all going to fry!!!!] that draws reaction. He's just a very angry fellow.


Personally, I think that determining true motives and emotions in an internet forum is difficult if not impossible, be it you or MacDoc or any of us.

I think MacDoc is very passionate about what he believes in, as I'm sure are you and others. People have different approaches. Such is life.

Many of the responses in this thread and others point to a personal debate going on between certain individuals. The message truly is getting lost through the name calling and finger pointing - which many of us can take responsibility for.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Let's see Mac*FURY*.....much anger little or no information accompaning the vitriole. ironic self description 

and in a slightly less obvious bit of irony



> fu·ry [fyoor-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> –noun, plural -ries.
> 1.	unrestrained or violent anger, rage, passion, or the like: The gods unleashed their fury on the offending mortal.
> 2.	violence; vehemence; fierceness: the fury of a hurricane; a fury of creative energy.
> 3.	Furies, Classical Mythology. minor female divinities:* the daughters of Gaea* who punished crimes at the instigation of the victims: known to the Greeks as the Erinyes or Eumenides and to the Romans as the Furiae or Dirae. Originally there were an indefinite number, but were later restricted to Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> ..We CANNOT control the weather and anyone who claims we can is a fool. A scientist perhaps, but a fool all the same.


I certainly remember hearing that people used to blame "The Russkies" and their "weather-control science" for any normal variation in weather throughout the 1950s. 

I DO think it's possible for very passionate people to start believing in almost anything if they become insecure--even about the notion that weather is more variable than they has previously thought possible.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Even more ironic:



> The Plymouth Fury was an automobile made by the Plymouth division of the Chrysler Corporation from 1956 to 1978.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I DO think it's possible for very passionate people to start believing in almost anything if they become insecure--even about the notion that weather is more variable than they has previously thought possible.


It's actually ok and very valid for someone to believe in something that you don't.

It doesn't make them insecure or even..._wrong..._


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> It doesn't make them insecure or even..._wrong..._


Nor does it make them right.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> It doesn't make them insecure or even..._wrong..._


People from the 1950s who thought Russia was controlling the weather?

They were _insecure_...and wrong.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Perhaps I'm missing the point of such debates. Are they simply vehicles for you to argue? It sure seems that way.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I suppose you're just missing the point, Jimmy.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I suppose you're just missing the point, Jimmy.


Take that! :lmao:

That's mrjimmy to you BTW.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oh sorry..._Mr._ Jimmy.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Awful lot of insecure wrong people in IPCC and National Science Academies I guess......nice company to keep. Thankyou.

Stick to your tabloids - suits.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Stick to your tabloids - suits.


Certainly an example of the type of rhetoric that isn't helping. I doubt very much I would feel as free to say something like "Keep your snoot buried in your dime-store science-fanatasy pulps," as either an opener or rejoinder.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Nor does it make them right.


Until the facts are in they are as right as you are. And no, the facts aren't in.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Why MacFury - that's all you've EVER done - nothing new there - as a matter of FACT - that would be an improvement since you would be citing a source , however dubious, instead of vitriolic puerile sniping which is all you EVER do.

Hey Sinc did you ever bother to email Dr. Keith and tell him how stupidly mislead he is about needing to ELIMINATE carbon emmissions...?? Gee he even told that to the Canadian government. ELIMINATE,



> Dr. Keith was named the inaugural Environmental Scientist of the Year by Canadian Geographic in 2006,


 ....must be embarrassing when an Albertan has such a foolish world view.

•••••

Mr. Jimmy - the entire body of climate science has similar uncertainties as do the theories of evolution, gravity, quantum mechanics and others.

That all the mechanisms, triggers are not fully understood is an ongoing aspect of science. Does the growing body of evidence fit within the theories of climate change, forcing, feedback and carbon cycles - in the large sense - yes - that's part of what the IPCC concludes. It also concludes there is a 10% chance that human activities are not triggering the change or are contributing a very small portion.
That there IS change is without doubt. That it is and will continue to impact humans is without doubt. Best course of action......up for discussion.
Biz as usual appears to NOT be one of the options - it already is not biz as usual and won't be for Canada after next week.
But humans still act on what knowledge we do have - it's extensive and it is unlikely that no other project was as heavily vetted and peer reviewed as the IPCC report on Climate change.

Next week Canadians will look at tangible impacts of the IPCC work in the Canadian budget. Time for sensible discussion instead of head in the sand denial.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Biz as usual appears to NOT be one of the options - it already is not biz as usual and won't be for Canada after next week.


After next week, the great Canadian cake will have little green icing on it. Sounds like a good approach to me.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MasterBlaster said:


> You are in no position to call anyone a fool.
> 
> http://science.howstuffworks.com/terraforming.htm


Oh excuse me. I was sitting. Should I have stood to post that?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MasterBlaster said:


> Denying climate change makes less sense than denying the holocaust.


That appears to be an unbelievably stupid statement. But I cannot deny its existence so it is just a remarkably stupid statement.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> the bottom line being we CANNOT control the weather and anyone who claims we can is a fool


That's an assumption that makes things convenient for the assumer. 

If you've assessed the science, great. It may just be the limits of this medium, but I never got the impression that you delved into the science much (for, against, rebuttals of both, etc.) so such an "assessment", in that case, would be more gut, wishful thinking or personal politics than anything else. 

For example, my assessment of the science on the various string (and super-string) theories wouldn't be very meaningful.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> For example, my assessment of the science on the various string (and super-string) theories wouldn't be very meaningful.


Don't be so humble, Beej...give yourself "string" and leave "super string" to the stringologists.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> That's an assumption that makes things convenient for the assumer.


That is no assumption Beej. That is fact. Or can you provide the science to show me that the weather can be controlled?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

My argument would be that if weather can be controlled (big IF) why don't we all just vote on what we think the weather should be and just make it that way. Why settle for some arbitrary climate?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> That is no assumption Beej. That is fact. Or can you provide the science to show me that the weather can be controlled?


Assuming something is impossible does not make it a fact, and I already made the point about the assumption: it allows one to ignore climate science instead of actually disproving it. The science attaches a high probability against your assumption but that does not need to be dealt with if you assume away the possibility from the start. You assume away any arguments against your feeling. Thus, you haven't done much of an assessment.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

That does not change my opinion in any way.

The ball's in the scientist's court. Prove the climate is controllable and I will become a believer.

Until that time, it is a fact that it is not.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

We can postulate that if the climate is controllable that the controls are sufficiently nebulous that the effect of doing or not doing anything are not subject to any reasonable test within any one person's lifetime.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

By the way, when MacDoc says that 133 countries agree to the IPCC conclusions, I hope he is not referring to the total number of countries in the G-77 (now 133 members). Membership does not indicate "agreement."


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> We can postulate that if the climate is controllable that the controls are sufficiently nebulous that the effect of doing or not doing anything are not subject to any reasonable test within any one person's lifetime.


Identifying, how much (if at all) to act is a decision of probability. The evidence to date, looking at probabilities, removes "sufficiently nebulous" and turns it into "sufficiently likely". 

The results of a reasonable test have also been, arguably, measured and analysed -- the historical record. 

Finally, being outside one person's lifetime does not by necessity place any boundaries on appropriate action. Timelines do change the magnitude of what is appropriate to do now, though.

It all leads to the same thing: the likelihood, given current knowledge, justifies public policy action. The alternative is a private property approach using U.S.-style nonsense lawsuits that have been forwarded. There isn't, that I've seen, a realistic property ownership approach such as has been used to successfully manage other parts of nature, so we're left with public policy. A standard commons issue, like many other international pollution issues. 

The policy debate should be centred, quite simply, on what to do, not if anything should be done.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MasterBlaster said:


> Well it doesn't look like anything is getting resolved here.


I think we can all be grateful that you aren't using your powers to impose a resolution, instead allowing us to use free will and self-detrerminism to arrive at our conclusions.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Do you play the cello?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> The results of a reasonable test have also been, arguably, measured and analysed -- the historical record.


Even if one were to accept that:

_the small amount of GHGs released into the atmosphere by humans was the primary cause of a global warming and that that amount of global warming would be detrimental to our existence_

one must then also agree that lowering that amount will either stabilize or lower the temperature of the earth. 

Global warming alarmists love to describe scenarios in which seemingly tiny alterations in atmospheric content trip off major cataclysms. Supposing that withdrawing our tiny GHG output sends the world's climate into a cataclysmic tailspin?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> But when science is wrong and fools follow it like gospel, they do more harm than good.


And don't forget that when religion and politics are wrong and fools follow it like gospel, they do more harm than good.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> And don't forget that when religion and politics are wrong and fools follow it like gospel, they do more harm than good.


If I happened to be religious, that might be the case. As it is, I'm not and it isn't.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

I'll throw this into the fray...

Anyone ever read James Lovelock? You seldom hear about "Gaia" theory in its original context these days. Both sides of the debate prefer not to engage it.

Simply put, "Gaia" theory describes the biosphere as being a self regulating system. Biomass maintains a homeostatic relationship with the atmosphere. I'm actually a fence sitter in this argument based on my understanding of "Gaia" theory. Do I think that human activity has an impact on the environment and ultimately the climate, absolutely. That being said I think that the the homestatic relationship that biomass has with the atmosphere will provide a certain amount of self regulation... that being said the rapid observed increase in GHG over the past 50 years may be too much for the system to cope with.

There are a lot of things working against us, specifically deforestation. forests are a primary example of how the system self regulates itself. Desertification is going to be the real issue that needs to be dealt with.

Also if we are or have passed "Peak Oil" we are only looking at another 50-75 years of the current issues related to GHG emissions from transportation. Coal is not nearly as significant a GHG source as petroleum.

And if you recall the issues around "global dimming", once again that shows how the system can and does regulate itself.

I expect that both sides of the argument will come after me... I do think that we need to address the ecological impact that humans have on the system and thus we do need much stricter controls in place (if anything for the overall health of the economy). I however also think that action plans such as Kyoto and carbon trading is an artificial inefficient means by which to put these controls in place.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

DJ


> I however also think that action plans such as Kyoto and carbon trading is an artificial inefficient means by which to put these controls in place


What would you suggest as an efficient and enactable alternative??
Not sure how you use the term "artificial" in this context. Do you mean coercive??


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> DJ
> 
> What would you suggest as an efficient and enactable alternative??
> Not sure how you use the term "artificial" in this context. Do you mean coercive??


No, I mean draconian and authoritative. If most of the world can agree on the convoluted Kyoto protocols they can agree on the following...

Step 1/. Outlaw all incandescent light bulbs by 2010, Outlaw CFL Bulbs by 2015. SSL has to be the only form of consumer and commercial lighting after 2015. End of story... It's the law.

Step 2/. Regulate and enforce fuel efficiency. This is clearly harder, specifically with the current leadership in the Western World. California had it right. Mandate all manufacturers of vehicles that their products must meet efficiency standards and that a certain percentage has to be based on alternative energy (ie. Electric). Just use laws and enforce the manufacturers to comply. I think it is the Ralph Nader approach and it worked for getting airbags and seat belts in cars.

This is of course pie in the sky thinking. Sadly we as a society, as a planet lack real leadership on these issues.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> I'll throw this into the fray...
> 
> Anyone ever read James Lovelock? You seldom hear about "Gaia" theory in its original context these days. Both sides of the debate prefer not to engage it.


I remember Lovelock from the '70s? And I think that he has a new book out. And, yes, I don't want to engage it either since I got the impression that it's all a bit "loopy".



da_jonesy said:


> I expect that both sides of the argument will come after me... I do think that we need to address the ecological impact that humans have on the system and thus we do need much stricter controls in place (if anything for the overall health of the economy). I however also think that action plans such as Kyoto and carbon trading is an artificial inefficient means by which to put these controls in place.


I agree with you on both counts! You should read Homer-Dixon's "The Upside of Down" and he has faith that humankind will be able to scrape up the resolve to do what needs to be done before the version of civilication is toast. I don't have that much faith in humankind, though.
I also think that "carbon trading" (first encountered this in the early '90s) is just smoke and mirrors to a great extent. A lot of the "greenies" think it's a great system while the "deniers" think that it's a international socialist welfare scheme. Unfortunately, it's probably the best that the greenies can come up with that's palatable and the deniers have no clue except to babble on about "free market forces".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

DJ - I think you'll see far more comprehensive programs including some similar to those over the next 5 years.
Phasing out incandescent bulbs is pretty much a given already and LED lights look ready fro prime time but that's small if needed changes.

Fuel standards too I think are a given - even in China  High fuel prices may drive more changes than legislation. A polluter pays tax on vehicles might be in the wind to accelerate that trend.
You may be surprised.

••

IM - I share your dim view of what WILL get done but what would YOU suggest?

Personally a combination of stick in the way of polluter pay taxes and carrot in the way of programs that offer low cost financing for retrofitting - ie bringing the cold pipe cooling to more buildings in the GTA as an example.

That said, the Montreal Accord was a reasonable success as was the acid rain initiatives so there are preceding examples tho never on as wide a scale.

I suspect a major force is a lot of people and for that matter nations want to get off the grid or off the risk/cost of being dependent on "foreign" energy sources.
I imagine there will be much trial and error and nowhere near the progress hoped for but should be some interesting technologies.
Certainly solar and bettery/energy storage looks to get a big boost.

Any guess on the Green Plan V2??


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> ••
> 
> IM - I share your dim view of what WILL get done but what would YOU suggest?
> 
> ...


You know me...it's always big, sweeping dramatic scenarios. Think jackboots in the streets with individual, corporate and national rights swept aside.

More realistically?

Curb demand for carbon-based fuels:

- Carbon tax would be good but I'd go further and crack down on major carbon emitters whether it's residential or commercial, private or public; the big problem would be setting up a series of targets for every item/aspect of life
- Take a more interventionistic mode towards urban planning and public transit
- Move hard on energy conservation; buildings should be graded and owners given an incentive to upgrade or punished. The latter may mean having the government do the work and billing them.
- Banning certain activities outright...for those of you who want quiet in cottage country this may be a good thing...provided you're still allowed to travel up there.

Increase/secure supply of alternative fuels:

- Pour more money into researching alternative energy sources...I'm pretty skeptical about ethanol and hydrogen at the moment.
- Pour a lot more money into researching modes of production that is a lot more energy-efficient with a lower carbon footprint. Think of Canada as a leader rather than a whiner.
- Make energy-efficiency a priority whe it comes to energy transport.
- Take a hard look at our own stores of fossil fuels to figure out ways to keep that fuel within Canada for Canadians.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Here's an economists take on one proposed solution. It is one that will surely lead to the break up of the country if implemented.

EDMONTON - Give Jeff Rubin credit. The outspoken chief economist at CIBC World Markets isn't afraid to call a spade a spade.

Rubin's blunt reports on Canada's looming "carbon wars" -- which he figures will pit Alberta's energy-fuelled economy against those of other provinces -- is merely the latest example.

Rubin isn't always right. He's had a few misses along the way. But his candour is refreshing in a country where political doubletalk and vested interests too often stifle honest debate. When it comes slashing Canada's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, Rubin utters a simple, irrefutable truth: Alberta, and Albertans, will pay. Big time. Canada's energy province is the bull's-eye.

So too will Saskatchewan, whose falling population means its per capita GGH emissions now rival Alberta's.

Thus, the launch of any domestic carbon trading market will force Alberta's big emitters -- coal-fired power plants and oilsands producers -- to buy credits from provinces that are blessed with clean power. Read: hydro power.

In other words, the cheques will go to Crown-owned utilities in Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia, Newfoundland and possibly Ontario. Alberta companies like TransAlta, Epcor, Syncrude and Suncor will be the losers.

Call it what you want. Agree with it or not. That's immaterial.

What it spells is a transfer of wealth, falling profits for Alberta companies, declining royalties for Alberta taxpayers, and in all likelihood, subsidized revenue streams for firms like Quebec Hydro, B.C. Hydro, and Manitoba Hydro. Which is helpful to know, don't you think? Might be kind of relevant.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/columnists/story.html?id=e67d0640-e8cc-431b-8afd-e8b73b02ae4d


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: Sounds like another swindle to me. 

The best way to curb the use of fossil fuels is to ensure people use them at market prices. Take the taxes OFF them. Since the conventional wisdom ere is that there's only another 80 years of these fuels left at best--some say 25--just let them get used up fast. Well before 80 years have passed, they'll be so expensive, people will be screaming for alternative energy and the market will respond--as it did to excessive coal prices a century ago.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

www.claybennet.com


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Seems your fellow Albertan's are in distinct disagreement with your willingness to piss into the the wind Sinc.
If NL has to control pollution so does Alberta and good for them they are willing to.

Your attitude on the other hand....is a disgrace,

The industry itself knows it will it's not a horrendous cost to go to zero or close to zero GHG or extraction



> A significant reason for Canada not being able to achieve its reduction target is the projected growth of pollution from the oil sands. Oil sands are the single fastest growing point source of emissions in Canada. To give you an idea of the scale, consider these facts:
> 
> • From 1995 to 2004 emissions have more than doubled 1
> .
> ...


*

no excuses.....*


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Albertans expect action on eliminating greenhouse gas emissions. Polling completed in April of this year shows that 91% of Albertans agreed strongly (58%) or moderately (33%) to the following statement:
> 
> Protecting the environment is important, even if it means oil sands development occurs more slowly.”



For the record, I fall in that 58% number, but if environmentalists think they're going to get continued support with those kinds of numbers by supporting Kyoto's ridiculous (and impossible) numbers they're dreaming.

Careful and steady planning will achieve results without destroying our economy. Kyoto is a farce.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC; MacDoc already told you there are no excuses for disagreeing with him. Didn't he bellow loudly eough for you this time?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Nope Macfury, I never did listen to a reverend in his pulpit, then or now. His new found religion of climatology is entertaining though, n'est ce pas?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: This has always been where I draw the line at somebody else's religion; when they insist that others have to participate. They can have an environmental footprint so small that they could balance on the head of a pin, and I hope Gaia heaps her blessings on them--just keep it to themselves.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Coal is not nearly as significant a GHG source as petroleum.


Coal is a major contributor (world's #2 energy source and much more carbon intensive than oil). Total GHG emissions from coal and petroleum are about the same. Coal is also very plentiful and relatively cheap. Furthermore, it's pollutant emissions are much lower with the latest technologies than with the old, making it more acceptable. That makes it a huge and long-term carbon source unless its GHG emissions are sequestered.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Here's an economists take on one proposed solution. It is one that will surely lead to the break up of the country if implemented.


And something that has been said for a while regarding the provincial politics of this issue:
............................
U of A economist Paul Boothe is a little more circumspect, but he says the choice is clear. Either Alberta gets ahead of the curve, and deals with the issue in a way that best serves the province's interests, or Alberta's economic interests could become collateral damage in a shooting war between federal politicians, eager to prove their virtuous "green" credentials. "This is something that I'm quite worried about," says Boothe.

"It seems to me that the federal government has a much greater incentive to be aggressive on emissions than the Alberta government, and we saw Mr. Dion come out (Friday) with another statement about emissions caps. So it's not unreasonable that we might see a competition emerge among the federal parties to be more aggressive on the environment, and to try to capture the allegiance of that median voter.

"Of course, one of the things we know pretty certainly is the median voter doesn't live in Alberta . . . So I think Jeff Rubin is pointing to is a real strategic question for Alberta. And that is, whoever has the more aggressive targets is going to trump the other. And if we don't as a province get out in front on this issue, we lose control of it."
............................


Regardless of what you believe or like, leading is in Alberta's interests. If AB and B.C. lead, that will act to further the shift in awareness and balance of power that is already going on through population and economics.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Opti-Beej says: Let Alberta punch itself publicly in the face; maybe the mob will be distracted from lynching it.

If Alberta is treated this shamelessly, I would encourage them to run, not walk, out of confederation.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MF: AB holding back a little on using the atmosphere as a waste receptacle and, thus, leading by example: That's more like choosing to carefully exit the mob and stop punching others face. Of course, Canada is an excellent scrapper when it comes to treating the environment like a crapper.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> Canada is an excellent scrapper when it comes to treating the environment like a crapper.


LOL. Well, it's such a big crapper sometimes it looks like you don't have to flush.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> LOL. Well, it's such a big crapper sometimes it looks like you don't have to flush.


To extend this rather vulgar analogy, the point is you *can't* flush... there's no where to flush *to*.

And WRT your continued efforts to paint concern over the climate and efforts to do something about it as a religion, do you really believe that science is a religion, or is this just empty rhetoric?

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> To extend this rather vulgar analogy, the point is you *can't* flush... there's no where to flush *to*.


Beej's analogy, my joke.




bryanc said:


> And WRT your continued efforts to paint concern over the climate and efforts to do something about it as a religion, do you really believe that science is a religion,


I believe that science is not of itself a religion. A certain brand of environmentalism is.


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

I will not comment on anyones post as there are way to much...

What I will say, is, thank you for the link. Finaly some "real" numbers and stats for the "yes lets get that earth warmer" so that we will have longer groing periods up north and so on and so forth.... 

Can you believe it, in the 70s it was "the ice age is coming" scare. 
Now with the "warming scare", get your wallets ready, this one is going to cost and in the end when all is done and said, it will be all for nothing (exept for the ones who will profit from the scare)....:yikes: 

Long live(s) the sun.... and its spots


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm not implying that Robert Silverberg wrote this book in agreement with the apocalyptic Ice Age scientists of the 1970s, but I remember being told in school that the Ice Age was a likelihood we should prepare for. I read _Time of The Great Freeze _hoping that the scientists were wrong--and they were.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I read _Time of The Great Freeze _hoping that the scientists were wrong--and they were.


And nothing has changed today. Different subject matter of dire warnings, but still wrong.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I would say that people most interested in controlling GHGs would do best to become shareholders in Chinese companies and influence them to reduce output to at least our levels. You eliminate more CO2 tonnage for your dollar by influencing China than Canada.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

I did post the Rex Murphy article a few pages back with respect to environmentalism being compared with a religion and I think that there is at least some merit to that in some areas. The anti-globalization movement is also closely associated with this, that is why Harper talked about it being a socialist scheme years ago.

But as someone who has a different religion and who is not firmly rooted in one political party or another, we are still looking at an awful lot of experts saying that the planet is warming up and that human emissions are very likely the cause.

Maybe they are wrong, but if we step back from the Kyoto targets and give ourselves a more reasonable amount of time to realize a decent reduction in ghg emissions (my non-expert view is 2020) we should be able to make a good start towards alternate energy sources without giving our economy a nasty shock.

Once the ball is rolling, and people find out they can make money from these technologies, it wouldn't surprise me if we actually got ahead of our targets sooner than expected (the joys of capitialism and love of money).

If we make this switch, and it turns out that the climate experts were wrong on this, it isn't like using less coal and oil is a bad thing...if our houses were warmed by solar power we would be less at the mercy of the markets in the winter, with electrical cars (charged with solar power) we wouldn't have to worry about magical gas price increases every long weekend and the middle east would start inching towards "banana republic" status.

Not to mention a reduction in other types of pollution emitted from these more traditional energy sources.

Last week the CBC's The National ran a documentary on Okotoks, a small town south of Calgary and they have already made strides in this direction. I can't find a link to the video, which is a shame, but there was an article from last year on their website:



> It is the subdivision of the future: Detached two-storey family homes with manicured lawns, pools and large garages, like any other in the area except that here 90 per cent of the hot water and the home heating comes directly from the sun — year round.
> 
> Canada in the year 2050? Actually it's Calgary in the fall of 2006, or more precisely Okotoks, a suburban community just to the south, which has as much sunshine and clean dry air as you will find almost anywhere in the world.


CBC


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The Germans have some very interesting designs along those lines -and their climate is not that much different than ours.










http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house



> The term Passive house (Passivhaus in German) refers to the rigorous, voluntary, Passivhaus standard for energy use in buildings. It results in ultra-low energy buildings that require little energy for space heating. A similar standard, MINERGIE-P®, is used in Switzerland [1].
> The first Passivhaus buildings were built in Darmstadt, Germany, in 1990, and occupied the following year. In September 1996 the Passivhaus-Institut was founded in Darmstadt to promote and control the standard. Since then more than 6,000 Passivhaus buildings have been constructed [2] in Europe, most of them in Germany and Austria, with others in various countries world-wide.


I was picking up some equipment in Toronto last night and it just boggled my ind how little had changed in the 40 years I've been roaming some of the streets and the unimaginable effort to change the energy use structure in some of these old buildings.

Maybe Napoleon had a point when he redid Paris 

I would think at the very least new housing and multiple dwellings could be held to a much higher energy use standard than we have now.
Would require town councils to stop being in the pockets of the housing industry.

a little vision and leadership in order.

Germany and much of Europe and of course Japan are far ahead because they have had to be.
We subsidize and waste as a result - I think we are the second highest per capita on the planet for carbon emmissions per person.
Now yeah geography and weather has SOME play in that.

Transport in my mind is the hardest bear to wrestle with tho the light rail initiative in Toronto is well conceived ( better that than the subway in my mind ).

The heart of the issue is embracing *polluter pays* - right now it's far cheaper to pollute than clean up and only govs can change that playing field.

I must say I'm encouraged by what I see bubbling in Alberta in terms of initiatives and those with vision like Dr. Keith.
Now if that new coal plant sequestered the emmissions......I'd be clapping all over.

The very heart of small c conservatism is to preserve and protect natural systems....love to see that.
In my mind given how much Canada is benefitting from it's energy resources it's incumbent on us to be seen to be leaders in providing that energy in a clean sustainable manner.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's a shame so many of those builldings have such cookie cutter aesthetics. They should try to take them in more of a Frank Lloyd Wright direction..


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

True enough, but take a look at our own fresh subdivisions... the hell of sameness is all-pervasive. We seem to excell at condemning ourselves to blandness. But I'm guessing most of us take comfort in repeating patterns anyway... serried ranks of near-identical facades... whether they be tall and narrow Victorians or more recent boxes.

However, in this case it would appear that the buildings' design is intrinisically enviro-sensitive, in which case one must attempt to impart distinctive character through other means.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> However, in this case it would appear that the buildings' design is intrinisically enviro-sensitive, in which case one must attempt to impart distinctive character through other means.


Max, I grew up in a home just to the right of the road in this shot:










I always thought is was intrinisically enviro-sensitive, and imparted distinctive character.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: I have nothing but contempt for the "homes of distinction" currently being built in Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton, etc. "Snout houses" are the worst.

But if a house like the enviro-shack above is already so recta-linear, why not pull the Llloyd Wright twig?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sinc, in the case of a grain elevator, form follows function. The cool thing about them is how much stature the prairie grants them... they tower over those flat plains. I have a soft spot for these suckers... great angles to them.

MF: yeah, the "homes of distinction" term really riles me. Week after week I am assailed with junk mail assuring me that I too can get any one of a zillion homes of de-stink-shun being thrown up at warp speed somewhere in the ever-expanding carbuncle that is the GTA. But what on earth are snout houses? Do you mean big boxes with the garage positioned front and centre? Please enlighten me.

The thing about a typical Wright house is that it may perhaps not be the ideal choice for our country's climate.... the notion of a flat roof perturbs me, as I see it as a gathering spot for snow. As I'm sure you well know, water damage is the most insidious force to work on a house... short of a fire, I suppose.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

zoziw said:


> Once the ball is rolling, and people find out they can make money from these technologies, it wouldn't surprise me if we actually got ahead of our targets sooner than expected (the joys of capitialism and love of money).
> 
> If we make this switch, and it turns out that the climate experts were wrong on this, it isn't like using less coal and oil is a bad thing...if our houses were warmed by solar power we would be less at the mercy of the markets in the winter, with electrical cars (charged with solar power) we wouldn't have to worry about magical gas price increases every long weekend and the middle east would start inching towards "banana republic" status.
> 
> Not to mention a reduction in other types of pollution emitted from these more traditional energy sources.


It's always nice to find grounds of agreement with someone that you are frequently arguing against. Well put.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: The skinny house with a garage poking up front to make up for the lack of lot width is indeed known as a "snout house." They are outlawed in certain parts of the U.S. (Seattle, is one place I believe).

What's hilarious about those flyers is that they always show the house sitting alone --or with another one or two at respectable distance--in the middle of a mature forest.

bryanc: I think many of us agree with energy efficiency. As even some enviro-centric proponents of energy conservation point out, tying all of this into a global warming scenario could pay out some bad dividends if we see any period of global cooling. Efficiency should be sold as important in itself--with all costs and benefits accounted for.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Go away for awhile and it seems the same arguments come up...

I wonder how many viewed the documentary that MacFury seems to think is the cat's meow...
This documentary was lauded by the right-wingers and climate deniers and MF quickly turned this into a political debate.

The "documentary" (for those that have viewed it, would see it for unabashed propaganda) ignores the preponderance of the scientific proof, and focuses on debunked notions.

I understand that MF would like to see more critical thinking but when one applauds such mindless propaganda you have to wonder about why he believes this way. You have tried to paint those that see what is evident as a religion, yet continue to foster upon some this rather predictable and pervasive propaganda - I wonder where your irrational exuberance comes from? 

Confusing beliefs with knowledge again?



I can see you saying that the documentary is "fact" -
So please explain how/why one of the few scientist may sue the filmmaker for distorting is views..


> I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component. But I have tried to stay out of the `climate wars' because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess. In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise.


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/

The climate and solar radiation graph stopped at 1980 - why not show the rest?
http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif
(hiding the obvious again)

I could go on, but it's up to Swindle to make their case instead of their laughable attempt as propaganda passing as science.... Not that I'd expect something neutral from Martin Durking - In against nature, he was found guilty by the Independent Television Commission of the UK for misleading subjects and distorting their views by editing their interview footage....


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> The climate and solar radiation graph stopped at 1980 - why not show the rest?


Wow, the is how old and we send into a spiral of doom in 27 short years, that is quite the accomplishment.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JJ - have you watched the documentary?
If you had, I think that your take would be a little different. 
So you tell me, why did the filmmakers decide to stop the graph at 1980 when data exist until 2000?

But to make you feel better here is a longer quote from Carl Wunsch:


> A leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was 'grossly distorted' and 'as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two'.
> He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat. 'I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,' he said. 'This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.'


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html



> The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy
> 
> Were it not for dissent, science, like politics, would have stayed in the dark ages. All the great heroes of the discipline - Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein - took tremendous risks in confronting mainstream opinion. Today's crank has often proved to be tomorrow's visionary.
> 
> ...


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MON20070318&articleId=5104

Please come back once you'd like to discuss the "documentary"....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU&eurl=http://redtory.blogspot.com/


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oh life and the planet will go on likely with greater diversity eventually - there have been up to 95% die offs before.

One in particular due to a climatic event.

For the same reasons that acid rain. CFC and pollution in the oceans and fresh water systems needed to be controlled and eliminated - and which have been with some success.....GHG needs to be.

And will be more and more - get used to it - it's a done deal.
Polluter pays...me you and the major emitters in Canada and elsewhere.

••••

As for the Durkin nonsense










Even some tabloids do better. Grasping at straws.......


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

That second graph is kind of interesting. There is still a good correlation between solar activity and temperature up to about 1970. But the data isn't shown past 1980. Why is that MacDoc? They make this criticism of Durkin, but do the exact same thing themselves.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Umm the graphs on the right go to 2000 - I don't know what you mean by the "second graph"? If you mean the solar graph - second down.
Channel 4 has indicated the graphs in the program were in error.

There are various summaries here









http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I see the IPCC is credited with the 1,000 year data.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> This documentary was lauded by the right-wingers and climate deniers and MF quickly turned this into a political debate.


I suppose "right wingers" tend to politicize things, huh? Sheesh!




ArtistSeries said:


> I can see you saying that the documentary is "fact" -
> So please explain how/why one of the few scientist may sue the filmmaker for distorting is views..


Wunsch will clear up whatever it is he was trying to say--though I find it difficult to see the problem. Perhaps he was pressured by some of his cronies or a research grant fell through...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Wow debating the validity of tabloid trash when the channel itself disavows the data.......down to grasping at rotten straws.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Here's the rebuttal from the documentary makers to the critizism MacDoc had pointed to.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1802672/posts

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Max: The skinny house with a garage poking up front to make up for the lack of lot width is indeed known as a "snout house." They are outlawed in certain parts of the U.S. (Seattle, is one place I believe).
> 
> What's hilarious about those flyers is that they always show the house sitting alone --or with another one or two at respectable distance--in the middle of a mature forest.


LOL
Thanks, I guessed correctly. An apt moniker for these ugly constructions. Like building temples to the automobile - pride of placement for the family wheels. Garages should be by the side or out back... _feh_.

Yes, those flyers can be a tad misleading. The magnificent mythical forest doing double-duty: providing restful shade and green splendour while cleaning the air of the noxious fumes from all of the cars that drive to and from these bazillions of snout houses.

As to outlawing such dubious creations, I suppose that's one way to go about it, but it's a slippery slope. You can't legislate good taste. Still, I'd be all for more snout houses provided they had to be part of gated commuities...to keep their inhabitants away from contaminating my neighbourhood, natch.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Wow debating the validity of tabloid trash when the channel itself disavows the data.......down to grasping at rotten straws.


And they will continue doing so - 
Their religion is so much stronger than facts and science. That wonderful combination of logic and facts seems to elude some....

MacGuiver, I'm glad to see you seek kindergarden level forms of rebuttal


> So what else do they hit me with? Prof Carl Wunsch, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who appeared in the film, later claimed he was duped into taking part. He was not.


What next? "I know you are but what I'm I?" Poor little propagandist - maybe he can also find those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq also....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Umm the graphs on the right go to 2000 - I don't know what you mean by the "second graph"? If you mean the solar graph - second down.


The True Temp and Solar Activity Graph.

There are two sets of data: one for temp; and, one for solar activity.

The solar activity graph only goes up to about 1985, while the temperature graph goes to about present time.

Why leave out this important data?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Why leave out this important data?


You should really ask that to the filmmakers, no?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> You should really ask that to the filmmakers, no?


I'm talking about the response to the film, not the film itself.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I'm talking about the response to the film, not the film itself.


Why not criticize the film itself? It's rather dodgy (in all aspects) or are you letting your ideology get in the way?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Are you talking about the cut off on the Solar activity? Geez Dave - solar cycles go to minimum and then back up - where do you think it's headed
I didn't produce the graphs but solar cycles are very predictable in their cycle timing if not entirely in their range.


----------



## Rampant AV (Aug 2, 2005)

The ball is rolling and no one is going to stop it. There are too many people making money in industries that cause GW. We're too far gone! Sorry but that's how it is.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Are you talking about the cut off on the Solar activity? Geez Dave - solar cycles go to minimum and then back up - where do you think it's headed
> I didn't produce the graphs but solar cycles are very predictable in their cycle timing if not entirely in their range.


One of us doesn't get it and I suspect it is you.

Look at the grey line, which is a measure of solar activity cycles. The data only goes up to about 1985, while the temperature data goes all the way to the end. There is some pretty good correlation between the data up to that point. 

I would like to see if that curve also moved up in correlation with the temperature data.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Solar activity over the period including irradiance and sunspot activity

Do I really need to post the temperature against it?? -= you know exactly what it will look like.

Are you defending a graph the Channel 4 itself says was in error on it's own show??

Please - make a case of El Nino tropical forcing versus North Atlantic salinity as feedback drivers but not on tabloid level graphs.
The program was total garbage.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MD: I think the problem was that the "response to 4" graph that you posted showed an upward trend from around 1900 to 1940, then down to around 1960, then stable to around 1980. In response you've posted graphs showing much shorter cycles. No need to be rude, let's just get into this. It could be a great example of sharing information.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Here is the combined graph


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

So Beej, are you saying that the "documentary" has merit?

It's fine to nitpick but when the "whole" is a biased piece of excrement, I wonder why some are so eager to be duped - I guess rubes like the ignorance.

Not that you can't call me rude, but why even debate this swindle that is the "documentary"?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: Glad to see that absence hasn't weakend your love of scatology.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> MD: I think the problem was that the "response to 4" graph that you posted showed an upward trend from around 1900 to 1940, then down to around 1960, then stable to around 1980. In response you've posted graphs showing much shorter cycles. No need to be rude, let's just get into this. It could be a great example of sharing information.


I think he is just avoiding answering the question. I think I was pretty clear in that I was NOT refering to the Channel 4 graph, but rather the graph presented in response to Channel 4.

The climate change attribution graph actually shows it and shows that solar activity has risen in correlation with temperature.

I find that very interesting.

Correlation is not causation. Just because CO2 is correlated with temperatures does not mean CO2 is the cause. We definitely know that the sun is not influenced by activities on the earth, yet the other factors could be (except perhaps volcanic emissions). 

Solar activity rose from 1900 to 1945 as did temperature.
Solar activity droped from 1945 to about 1970 as did temperature.
Solar activity rose from 1970 to present, as did temperature.

So, based on this, I don't agree with their counter point saying that no correlation exists. It does.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

And by the subject of this thread, you seem endorse it.
I see you haven't defended the "documentary" with any vigour - still the ministry of disinformation I see.....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> So, based on this, I don't agree with their counter point saying that no correlation exists. It does.


So does this mean you agree with this piece of rubbish?

I think that I saw a study that said 99% of people that said Saddam had WMDs are the same ones that are climate change deniers.... Wonder why that is  

Bottom line VD and MF, you seem to be following a position based your political beliefs instead of fact - onward denial trolls....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> So does this mean you agree with this piece of rubbish?
> 
> I think that I saw a study that said 99% of people that said Saddam had WMDs are the same ones that are climate change deniers.... Wonder why that is
> 
> Bottom line VD and MF, you seem to be following a position based your political beliefs instead of fact - onward denial trolls....


:lmao: Please.

I have made my position clear previously. I believe there is a high likelihood that global warming is caused by GHG emissions. I believe that the precautionary principal compels us to take action.

Like any subject in science, the data should be scrutinized and questioned. It's a good thing.

Shouldn't you be out campaigning for the Bloc?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> ..onward denial trolls....


Oy vey! In the face of such science I don't know what to say....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Oy vey! In the face of such science I don't know what to say....


I do, but I'll hold my breath instead.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> I do, but I'll hold my breath instead.


Wooo Hoooo! GHG emissions in western canada just dropped 50%!

Sorry man, I couldn't resist that one.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Where did I say ANYTHING about correlation with CO2 - 

Solar activity versus temperature is your question and why it cut off early on the graph on the right that the TV station supplied as a correction - because solar activity was in decline - I guess the TV station assumed a bit of common sense since it was comparing the section of graph in the TV special that was used to the same section with the correct data.
That's ALL those comparative graphs are meant to show.

The other graph including solar, GHG and temp and ozone etc was merely to confirm the lack of correlation with solar and temp and indicate correlation or not with other possible forcing factors.

Let's make it clear
The TV station that aired the special came out with a correction for data shown in the show that was WRONG or exceedingly misleading.

••••

You seem to miss the point VD - the graph on the right was produced BY THE STATION correcting what the special it aired showed which is on the left. The BBC made the correction - argue with them.


•••
VD states 


> Solar activity rose from 1900 to 1945 as did temperature.
> Solar activity droped from 1945 to about 1970 as did temperature.
> Solar activity rose from 1970 to present, as did temperature.


You make that statement - how does it square with this ?










You think Standford is just doodling??

The last 30 years - sunspots, Irradiance and Solar flare.









Where is your tracking against temperature?


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> Wooo Hoooo! GHG emissions in western canada just dropped 50%!
> 
> Sorry man, I couldn't resist that one.



nice one....:clap: all in fun....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Oy vey! In the face of such science I don't know what to say....


MF, the "documentary" is a dud and you seem fully aware of that.
The "points" it tried to make have been debunked many times and the filmmakers motives seem dubious at best. 
Yet, you amazingly, keep up with you pretence - your faith seems much stronger than the truth - but then, this kind of polemic appeals to your senses....

It's amusing to see you espouse baseless positions and never back up your views...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> You make that statement - how does it square with this ?
> 
> You think Standford is just doodling?


No, but this is doodling.

Up, down and then up again. See the trend?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Vandave said:


> No, but this is doodling.
> 
> Up, down and then up again. See the trend?


Sure looks like a better correlation with solar than CO2.
I also question that hockey stick graph they keep showing. Wasn't that climate model shown to spew out hockey sticks with last years 649 numbers? 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> Sure looks like a better correlation with solar than CO2.
> I also question that hockey stick graph they keep showing. Wasn't that climate model shown to spew out hockey sticks with last years 649 numbers?


They keep on revising the numbers of everything down...down...down...ocean rises, temperatures, hurricane frequency, etc.

We are supposed to react as though each level, as predicted at a particular moment, is an emergency.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> So Beej, are you saying that the "documentary" has merit?


The hack is back. With you or agin' you, everything but devout unquestioning support will be misinterpreted etc.

So AS, are you saying that the scarecrow is the character you most closely identify with?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> They keep on revising the numbers of everything down...down...down...ocean rises, temperatures, hurricane frequency, etc.
> 
> We are supposed to react as though each level, as predicted at a particular moment, is an emergency.


Yeah, it won't be long now after they wring as many dollars as they can out of global warming, that they'll be peddling parkas in the Sahara. It's cyclical you see.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

It seems Al Gore has been challenged to a television debate on global warming. Will he accept it or will he be "too busy"?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20070319.DCM015&show_article=1


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

There's no money in debates, unless he gets some kind of kick back from it, doubt he would.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You actually want to follow that through to 2007??

The peak warm year in the 90s was 98 - at the bottom of the solar activity cycle.
No one questions there is some sun activity tracking but it's nowhere near the forcing level of GHG as you well know and your doodle is tracking further apart.

This was written in 2000


> The recent shift to a longer cycle length (from 9.5 years in 1985 and 9.6 in 1990 to 10.8 years now) *if it continues, could be signaling a global cooling trend.The cooling trend may have begun in the middle of 2000 here in the United States*.


ooops - no cooling trend in sight 2000 and on.

This from Goddard/NASA



> The highest global surface temperature in more than a century of instrumental data was recorded in the 2005 calendar year in the GISS annual analysis. However, the error bar on the data implies that 2005 is practically in a dead heat with 1998, the warmest previous year.
> 
> Our analysis, summarized in Figure 1 above, uses documented procedures for data over land (1), satellite measurements of sea surface temperature since 1982 (2), and a ship-based analysis for earlier years (3). Our estimated error (2?, 95% confidence) in comparing nearby years, such as 1998 and 2005, increases from 0.05°C in recent years to 0.1°C at the beginning of the 20th century. Error sources include incomplete station coverage, quantified by sampling a model-generated data set with realistic variability at actual station locations, and partly subjective estimates of data quality problems (4).
> 
> ...


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

There is also that little ocean acidification problem which on it's own regardless of temperature issues is akin to acid rain in fresh water but on a massive scale. That alone dictates carbon control is needed urgently.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2606.htm



> Acid Oceans Threatening Marine Food Chain, Experts Warn
> Scott Norris in San Francisco, California
> for National Geographic News
> February 17, 2007
> ...


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070217-acid-oceans.html

Even if the temperature wasn't rising just as acid rain for fresh water required ( and ongoing ) reform - so the ocean acidification does as well. Similar problem bigger scale.

Once more - done deal....carbon needs control big time for a variety of reasons and that control will be a major economic fact of life and a growing one for the forseeable future.

Some of the current carbon sinks may flip to carbon or methane emitters. 
....lurch.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Once more - done deal....carbon needs control big time for a variety of reasons and that control will be a major economic fact of life and a growing one for the forseeable future.


If it were a "done deal" you wouldn't be yowling so much.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> There's no money in debates, unless he gets some kind of kick back from it, doubt he would.


And of course, he would have to debate and defend the facts in his film.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> The hack is back. With you or agin' you, everything but devout unquestioning support will be misinterpreted etc.


Now Beej, have you even watched the "documentary"? 
I provided a link to the complete farce.

The preponderance of scientific evidence points to Global Warming yet some cling to shows such as the swindle with rapturous delight...
The "author" of this documentary has been rebuffed many times for misleading tactics in previous endeavours.
One of their main experts has publicly denounced the way his words have been distorted and taken out of context. 
The arguments in this "documentary" have been debunking ad nauseum.
Yet, conservative friends have lauded this piece of rubbish.

I find it odd that you'd be encouraging falsehoods and empty debate on this subject by an almost tacit approval of it. Don't get me wrong, I've never stated that we can't debate the causes and effects but set against the rigid ideology of climate deniers, there can be no discussion.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Voyager said:


> It seems Al Gore has been challenged to a television debate on global warming. Will he accept it or will he be "too busy"?
> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20070319.DCM015&show_article=1


Why would he want to debate lower life forms?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: I think AS is admitting he likes Scarecrow the best. 

But who wouldn't love a little dog? AS is a beast!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Only one doing yowling MF - good description for your contentless mindless blather.

••••

Some are advocating engineering solutions....such as robot ships or orbiting mirrors or injecting sulphur. Pretty marginal approach in my mind.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/geo-engineering-in-vogue/


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

By all means, lets have orbiting mirrors. Oh wait, the robot ships sound way cooler.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Why would he want to debate lower life forms?


How do you become a "higher life form," use 20x as much power as a normal household to keep your mansion up and running?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Why would he want to debate lower life forms?


When the founders of the faith can't win a public debate, Gore knows better than to put his apocalyptic gospel up for public scrutiny.

http://epw.senate.gov:80/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ac1c0d6-802a-23ad-4a8c-ee5a888dfe7e

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

At least he buys offsets.....do you??? Lame argument to attack the messenger.

Get over it - it's here - big time. Some people think vaccines are a big conspiracy too.....
oh yeah and no correlation between smoking and cancer..., silicon implants are safe..same crowd if you recall. What a ludicrous bunch you claim as "fellow travellers".


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> At least he buys offsets.....do you???


Proof that the environmental regime envisioned by these guys is designed to allow its wealthier proponents to buy their way out of sin. YOU, on the other hand...

Besides, Gore buys the offsets from his own company.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> At least he buys offsets.....do you???


I'm actually moving to Oakville to be closer to work and cut down on commuting, I think that is a start. But I'm sure if I was worth as much as Gore, I could do a lot more. 

Want to talk about lame, offsets an excuse to use more energy, I pay for gas, does that mean we should use more? I thought the idea was to reduce. As with many of the "messengers" or reverends as he should be called, it's just a cash grab for him.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Good point about using offsets to ease your conscience and proceed to gobble up yet more energy. Not unlike people who buy big SUVs because they want to "be safe" yet drive them more recklessly than they should... sometimes with fatal consequences.

But I'll stop there and disagree with you that it's just a cash grab for Gore... I believe his heart is in the right place (I'll allow that the brain _might_ need a bit of sharpening) and that he does not see himself as a preachy reverend.. nor do I, actually. I hear some serious proselytizing from loud-mouthed street preachers on Yonge St. - I don't get the same vibe at all from Al Gore.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Great less commuting it all helps.

Gore IS doing a lot more.he's raised awareness....and not clouding the issue as you are.

HE sees the biz opportunity in green as do the Bullfrog guys I'm happy to support.

I don't want a third world level existence - I want a low carbon flexible existence.
There is a ton of money and opportunity in this.....but puerile noise about "I dunno"".......isn't moving it along.

Neither is stuff like continuing the oil and gas subsidies for another 3 years when that could have been turned to sequestering support.

Canada is second worst in the world for GHG pollution and it's shameful and unnecessary and it's starting to be addressed which is excellent.

More choices for low carbon footprint will arise from this effort.

••

Max - as long as the formula is right if people want to or need to drive large polluting vehicles who cares as long as the carbon footprint is reduced.
Polluter pays is the principle.

Some will reduce - others will offset by choice or necessity and some will do both.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's not a cash grab for Gore--I think he believes the stuff, but in the same way as the loud-mouthed preacher on Yonge believes _HIS_ stuff. It's not open to scrutiny. Gore carefully controls his appearances to avoid argument, while the loud mouthed preacher has gotta deal with the tough Yonge Street crowd.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Max said:


> But I'll stop there and disagree with you that it's just a cash grab for Gore... I believe his heart is in the right place (I'll allow that the brain _might_ need a bit of sharpening) and that he does not see himself as a preachy reverend.. nor do I, actually. I hear some serious proselytizing from loud-mouthed street preachers on Yonge St. - I don't get the same vibe at all from Al Gore.


I guess those talks he gave were free, and all the proceeds from his movie (staring himself (not a reverend eh)) are going to global warming innitiatives? The difference between him and the street preechers is that he could afford put his message on the big screen and reach more people. Al Gore is a smug pretentious hypocrite and is only interested in his bottom line.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

He may indeed deal with the Yonge St. crowd, but all I've ever seen any of these cats do is grin a little more tightly and turn themselves to face anything but the hecklers... you see, there is no communication going on there, either. Dude's mind is made up and he's there to save your ignorant butt from your own ignorant self.

As to whether or not Al Gore is cut of the same cloth, I guess you could make a case for it. I personally find him much easier to deal with. I find Michael Moore a great deal more manipulative and confrontational, for example.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I guess so is yours - that's why you moved eh.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Jumbo, say you had a cause you believed in and set about traveling the world with your message. Do you honestly think you could do so out of your own pocket? Do you honestly consider the gamut of his expenses are all bogus and that you could do far better with your own message?

You don't have to cut the guy a break if you don't want to, but I for one can't take you seriously if all you have to attack him with is the fact that he charges for his lectures.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

JumboJones said:


> Al Gore is a smug pretentious hypocrite and is only interested in his bottom line.


I don't care for the guy's smugness either, but I'm thinking a big ego trip is much of the reward here and not cash. He's pushing to become some sort of climate czar at the UN or something.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I don't care for the guy's smugness either, but I'm thinking a big ego trip is much of the reward here and not cash. He's pushing to become some sort of climate czar at the UN or something.


Sure I can accept that too.

Max don't give me a song and dance about the costs of spreading your "message" the idea that he is not making anything from all of his efforts is ridiculas. But I guess if that excuse works for the churches...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I find it odd that you'd be encouraging falsehoods and empty debate on this subject by an almost tacit approval of it.


That's a big yes from the scarecrow, er, strawman, er whatever. Let's help you find what you're looking for, scarecrow, outside of your No Spin Zone. Because, in your No Spin Zone, someone's 'fer it if they ain't hellfire screaming agin' it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What does it matter if the guy is making millions from it??
I'd like to see Canada and individuals and companies make 100s of millions from going to zero carbon emissions.

That's the point. Are you going to knock Denmark for making millions with windpower AND killing GHG emissions.

Even disregading climate change entirely there are good reasons to have a lower energy footprint.
I'd love to be able to buy a passive home- it would save me money - all other factors aside.

Dissing the messenger is lame.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Re Gore: Yes, discreditting a messenger based purely on motives is lame. It's a consideration, but it's really about the validity of the message.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

JumboJones said:


> Sure I can accept that too.
> 
> Max don't give me a song and dance about the costs of spreading your "message" the idea that he is not making anything from all of his efforts is ridiculas. But I guess if that excuse works for the churches...


Dude, what's _ridiculas_ is you getting all high and mighty about 'the message' yet being quite unable to spell. Quit with the comic relief, you're killing me.

Look, you just try and do what Gore does out of your own pocket. Let me know how that goes. I should be ready for another laugh by then.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> At least he buys offsets.....do you???


Buying offsets does nothing but clear the conscience of the purchaser and line the pockets of the recipient. Net carbon change = zero.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Max said:


> Dude, what's _ridiculas_ is you getting all high and mighty about 'the message' yet being quite unable to spell. Quit with the comic relief, you're killing me.
> 
> Look, you just try and do what Gore does out of your own pocket. Let me know how that goes. I should be ready for another laugh by then.


If you stick your neck out to be figure head for a cause you are bound to be scrutinized about your true intentions and the validity of the message itself, get over it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Net carbon change = zero.


Ummm that's the idea - in part - at the very least don't make it worse. Net zero is an admirable goal - how about we apply that to the oil sands.

•••

So JJ you don't think there should be sewage standards, water pollution standards, care emission standards that individuals, companies, cities etc need??

Validity of carbon impact??? - care to enlighten us??


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> That's the point. Are you going to knock Denmark for making millions with windpower AND killing GHG emissions.


Denmark's GHG emissions seem to be quite high:


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

JumboJones said:


> If you stick your neck out to be figure head for a cause you are bound to be scrutinized about your true intentions and the validity of the message itself, get over it.


Oh golly JJ, I am _so_ over it. I just don't think you are over whatever's ailing you. Please point out where I claimed you cannot scrutinize Gore regarding his (oooh!) "true intentions." And while we're at it, one day perhaps you can get back to me about how you could do Gore's gig, as effectively, out of your own expenses; you've been side-stepping that one, you see.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Interestingly, Denmark's windfarming succeeds on its home turf precisely because of its available winds and because it has a ready market in other countries who do not use wind. Since wind power is difficult to store, you need to be able to use it somewhere quickly or it doesn't pay for itself. The power production by wind in Denmark is still highly unstable.

One neat idea is to use excess wind power capacity to pump water back UP behind a hydroelectric dam, seeing as you can't use the power immediately, anyway. 

Still, they're damned ugly and should only be placed well off shore.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Article on environmental taxation.

http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/2100/Can_taxes_on_energy_work_.html
..............................
Overall, as in all good policymaking, two features are vital for success: coherent policy goals that are clearly stated, and a good public understanding and acceptance of the need for action and of the measures that are being adopted. 
..............................

A fairly straight-forward discussion that can help increase understanding of environmental taxes.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> When the founders of the faith can't win a public debate, Gore knows better than to put his apocalyptic gospel up for public scrutiny.


The only ones that seem immerse in faith are climate change deniers. 
Lord Monckton (the person who wants to debate) has only added the most biased and false "facts" to the debate. 


> Monckton's claims about climate change have been challenged by climate scientists, including Gavin Schmidt of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and Dr. Stephen Harrison, Senior Lecturer in Physical Geography at the University of Exeter and Senior Research Associate at the Oxford University Centre for the Environment.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

Maybe your Lord would like to debate some of those scientists instead of trying to gain self-serving publicity for himself by wanting to debate Gore, no?
It's great to want to take Al Gore to task but maybe he should work his way up....

I've yet to see any Climate Denier show anything more than faith and you really seem vacant when it comes to facts. 

As for Gore, he's been involved one way or another with climate change for decades. I guess principles is something that escape some. 

So Beej, you have yet to inform us if you have viewed the "documentary". As have many here... I guess screaming hellfire and all that doom and gloom is attractive if it goes against all logic and common sense.... 

What is so hard to understand that the "documentary" that MF refers too has been discredited, it's arguments previously debunked, it's main scientist interviewed has decried the way his words/interview was distorted and the filmmaker has a history of bias that would make propagandists proud?

Present a solid argument on behalf of climate deniers if you want, but the piece of rubbish that was "The Great Global Warming Swindle" should be pointed out for what it was.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Denmark is also making millions shipping it's windturbines and also dropping in CO2 emmissions.




























so we're missing out on making money on green technologies and polluting like crazy. Brilliant management.

••

AS - dealing with MacG based on science is a lost cause - he hasn't got past evolution yet. He's used to nonsense - swallows it whole daily.

The IPCC report was
a) conservative
b) the most vetted report ever issued

The deniers don't buy it......they're lost causes - flat earthers.
Fortunately govs and other citizens, cities, states and nations are putting them on ignore.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> What is so hard to understand that the "documentary" that MF refers too has been discredited, it's arguments previously debunked, it's main scientist interviewed has decried the way his words/interview was distorted and the filmmaker has a history of bias that would make propagandists proud?
> 
> Present a solid argument on behalf of climate deniers if you want, but the piece of rubbish that was "The Great Global Warming Swindle" should be pointed out for what it was.


Yes, scarecrow, I understand that you like strawman arguments. We've been over that, but I'm glad to be of service because, afterall, you have to attribute the strawman to someone. And, someone who doesn't follow the rules in your No Spin Zone is an excellent choice! 

Are you sure you don't want any help in finding what you're missing?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: No, I'm not disagreeing that they're dropping their GHGs--jsut noting that they're a fairly high producer.

I'm not sure how much money they're making on the turbines after you subtract government funding, but in matters like these I prefer the Danish taxpayer pay for the development funding.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Max said:


> Oh golly JJ, I am _so_ over it. I just don't think you are over whatever's ailing you. Please point out where I claimed you cannot scrutinize Gore regarding his (oooh!) "true intentions." And while we're at it, one day perhaps you can get back to me about how you could do Gore's gig, as effectively, out of your own expenses; you've been side-stepping that one, you see.


We all do something in our own little way, if I was making this my personal mission, and I had his kind of cash I wouldn't see the need to hose people out of their cash to get my message across. There are plenty of free soapboxes out there for people to stand on.

But thanks for calling me out, you really proved your point especially by commenting on my spelling, what next name calling?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Most northern developed nations are a high producer per capita.
Lots of gain to be had as a result.
If polluting is too low cost....change will not happen.


The discussion really should revolve around best method to achieve low or zero GHG emissions starting with zero increase as first step.
Then serious reduction by 2020 over 1990 levels.
Then as close to zero as can be by 2050

Then wait 200 years and see if it worked while the current burden dumps out.
I suspect the tundra and a couple of other switching mechanisms are now ON and are in climate forcing mode big time.

'Bout all we can do is watch and perhaps keep the acceleration a bit lower.

We dodged ( so far ) with ozone. Suspect this one is not dodgeable - just endurable and perhaps the consequences can be stretched out to where the population crunch is past.

Even ignoring that, getting off fossil fuels is a good plan for a whole variety of reasons.

Solar is looking very interesting and now the economics are starting to make sense.
Liberation from the grid is no bad thing period.

••••

JJ said


> We all do something in our own little way,


Why??


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> The only ones that seem immerse in faith are climate change deniers.
> Lord Monckton (the person who wants to debate) has only added the most biased and false "facts" to the debate.


I have no Idea about Lord Monckton. He could be all that you claim he is. Actually if he's that inept it should be easy to destroy him in a debate. 
But I can't help but note the shield around Gore and his crusade of doom and gloom. He was on Oprah one day and I was shocked that they allowed someone to challenge his movie. Shockingly in the days of live feeds and satellites, it was only a pre-taped statement, and likely in Al's hands long before he had to answer to it with no chance for the scientist to make a rebuttal to Gore's response. His response was the typical hot earth canned response, (he's on the pay from big oil, the cigarette/cancer story yada yada) but not a single statement dealing with the facts the scientist had presented that directly contradicted Gores claims.
I for one would like to see an open debate. Why are Hot Earther's like Gore and Suzuki scared to debate a skeptic to defend their stand? Especially if science is on their side. Should be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacGuiver: I suspect that zoologist Suzuki and politician Gore are just not capable of standing up for themselves in an open debate on this--it would force them to get off their talking points.

I read the transcript of an interesting OPEN debate on this topic: _Global warming is not a crisis._

FOR:

* Micheal Crichton, writer and filmmaker
* Richard S. Lindzen, of the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT.
* Philip Stott, an Emeritus Professor and biogeographer from the University of London, UK. 

AGAINST:

* Brenda Ekwurzel, who works on the national climate program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). 
* Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. 
* Richard C.J. Somerville, Distinguished Professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego.

You can download the debate in PDF form here:

http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/Event.aspx?Event=12


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

We all have our reason's MD, but it doesn't have to be because we believe that the GHG monster is coming and is going to destroy our earth.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> You can download the debate in PDF form here:
> 
> http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/Event.aspx?Event=12


Thanks!* I'll give it a try**.

*Disclaimer: In not spitting on MF, I do not in any way deny human-induced global warming or agree with anti-climate change propaganda.***

**Disclaimer: In not explicitly condemning the Devil of denial and praising the Lord of acceptance, I do not in any way deny human-induced global warming or agree with anti-climate change propaganda.***

***Note: The disclaimers not explicitly stating my position on human-induced global warming does not mean that I in any way deny human-induced global warming or agree with anti-climate change propaganda.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> His response was the typical hot earth canned response, (he's on the pay from big oil, the cigarette/cancer story yada yada) but not a single statement dealing with the facts the scientist had presented that directly contradicted Gores claims.
> I for one would like to see an open debate. Why are Hot Earther's like Gore and Suzuki scared to debate a skeptic to defend their stand? Especially if science is on their side. Should be like shooting fish in a barrel.


Could it be that often the climate change deniers will do a shootgun blast of BS all over the place and by the time you have debunked their arguments the audiences are not interested anymore? 

Also what is being debated? 
There seem to be a contrarian view that is defined your political views, nothing based on evidence. So how to you debate when irrational ideology is your guiding principles? 

We can debate the policy side of fighting global climate change and the mechanism of climate change but when some want to deny the facts and muddy the waters with irrelevant information, why even bother?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A debate without the foundation underlying it is merely interesting. 
Clarence Darrow could and did debate both sides of an issue in public forums - taking opposing views one night and the contrary the next night. He would "win" both debates.

The heart of it is - taken from the dialogue - regarding the IPCC



> *There’s never been as thorough and vetted a process for summarizing science precisely for the point of making input to policy makers. Nothing said here tonight in a few minutes that we have can possibly undermine, uh, this powerful statement from the scientific community*


Now you can either accept the findings of the body charged with the task and supported by the 130 nations and 11 Science Societies as a rational and well reseached, documented, vetted product.....or not.

If you don't "buy it" please then just ignore them and reduce energy/carbon footprints for all the other good reasons including those that went toward abating acid rain and CFC and to reduce your own energy costs and dependence on unstable energy sources.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Now you can either accept the findings of the body charged with the task and supported by the 130 nations and 11 Science Societies as a rational and well reseached, documented, vetted product.....or not.


It's not quite so simple. The big GHG theorists are demanding massive changes to economies, personal behaviour and taxation policy. Merely addressing identifiable pollutants or energy efficiency in a rational manner is not the same approach as acting immediately in massive fashion to avert a supposed global crisis. 

You can't equate the two.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Now you can either accept the findings of the body charged with the task and supported by the 130 nations...


Are you implying that the 130-odd nations who are members of the so-called Group of 77 all support the IPCC pronouncement? That certainly isn't true. To which group of countries are you referring?


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Good grief, Macfury, take a powder and lie down. You'll do yourself a damage soon.

Mind, it must be hard to see the tide coming in on all this - I feel for you.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Mind, it must be hard to see the tide coming in on all this - I feel for you.


The great tide of what? The piecemeal programs and the gnashing of teeth and rending of vestments I see around me because "nothing is being done?" 

A spectacle, I suppose, but not a tide. 

Things might be different in Scotland, but the Scots haven't shown any real Moxie for the past couple of centuries anyway.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> The big GHG theorists are demanding massive changes to economies, personal behaviour and taxation policies


Different issue.

Here is the report to Policy makers

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Where do you see in that report specific recommendations??

Each nation, region and person has to decide what remedy to apply to the individual circumstance.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Straw man, MacDoc. The IPCC Report is just an alarmist document, not a prescriptive one.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So as with "cigarettes cause an increase in cancer" - how to deal with it.

That's individual govs that come up with policy.

Group action ala The Montreal Accord, the Great Lakes Treaty, the Acid Rain initiative, Ocean dumping laws are undertaken by signatories.

There are good models for collective action and it's important in particular as like the ocean there are commons involved.

Level of risk is also up for discussion but for certain aspects the international insurers have laid down their opinion already and the financial markets are assessing companies on "cost of polluting risk" to individual companies.

A combination of individual/corp "good citizen" decisions, moral suasion, legislation, incentive and economic gain/loss will drive towards a lower carbon output from civilization.

Unlike CFCs where there was a practical alternative GHG is not so easy given our situation.
Acid rain was not as large a scale.

Even without global climate there is an energy and population crunch/bottleneck coming up in the same critical time frame.

Those two factors play into this as even "biz as usual" isn't really possible with the current resources and the drive to higher living standard in say China and India.

There are no easy answers but at the very least acknowledge there is a LARGE and interlocking set of problems in all three areas - climate, energy availability and population.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

YOU said it was prescriptive - I said it was not. It isn't.

YOU claim it is alarmist - sorry but I'll take the IPCC assessment which I think is conservative over your tabloid approach to assessing it.

Growl all you want - you're dealing with decarbonizing more and more every day.
So you have a choice of looking foolish.....as you do.
Or providing input into various alternative approaches to the decarbonization that IS set before us collectively.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Things might be different in Scotland, but the Scots haven't shown any real Moxie for the past couple of centuries anyway.


Dinnae fash y'self aboot us laddie.

What's Moxie? :lmao:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah I hear Scotland is setting up to add world class wine to it's uisge beatha dominance.

"Tis an ill wind n'all.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I claim the document is alarmist, and that theorists are prescriptive--nothing else.

I have no particular love of carbon dioxide, but I don't fear it as you do.

I support businesses who want to make money on new technologies that are energy efficient. I don't support forcing them to do so, paying them tax money to do so, or creating any kind of heady carbon regulation in Canada. The rest of the world is free to regulate itself anyway it wants to.

Your choice of "looking foolish" vs. "input into decarbonization" is a set of false alternatives. 

I choose: mitigating economic and social damage caused by the overreactions of GHG theorists by taking a realistic look at the minimal risk proposed by carbon dioxide


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So acidification of the oceans OR the lakes is fine by you.

Pollution by oil rigs or shipping land and sea is fine by you.

Use of ANY CFC gas, crop spray, DDT is fine by you.

Use of ANY pesticide, herbicide is fine by you.

Dumping sewage into the street is fine by you??

Just so we're clear on the concept.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

JumboJones said:


> But thanks for calling me out, you really proved your point especially by commenting on my spelling, what next name calling?


Heavens no... though I see you had no problem calling Gore a hypocrite. No, I'm asking you to tell me why you think Gore shouldn't be charging for his lectures. Simple question, really.

But tell you what - I think I won't wait for an answer.

MF: duly noted the dig at the Scots... you'll pay for that one, laddie.

In other related news, I see Buzz Hargrove is complaining today that the new green initiatives in the budget are going to hurt Ontario car builders, simply because no one is building hybrid cars in this province... at least for the time being. I wonder if he would prefer we all set our watches back a few years and simply hope for the best.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> So acidification of the oceans OR the lakes is fine by you.
> 
> Pollution by oil rigs or shipping land and sea is fine by you.
> 
> ...


_Sigh._ We're really grasping at the "fer us or agin' us" again, are we? Either you get on the GHG bandwagon or you're the type of person who pours sulphuric acid over a flock of baby ducks?

Pollution of the commons should be dealt with to a much larger degree by courts than by government--government usually mitigates the fines and punishments to a point well below that which might be awarded by a court.

But regulating the careful use of obviously poisonous and harmful substances is not the same as trying to expensively remake society over an unfounded fear of CO2.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Buzz Hargrove...I wonder if he would prefer we all set our watches back a few years and simply hope for the best.


Why not set your calendars back as well? Buzz is living in the heady union days of 1978!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yep, free to continue to represent the people who increasingly build cars nobody wants.. kewl.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dodging the question MF??

Pollution is as YOU decide it is??

Sorry to inform you otherwise. Emissions of all sorts are controlled by gov regulation and the courts award damages if those regulations are broken. see Bhopal.
Courts don't determine what the thresholds of harm are or the nature of the substances - they determine damage - and are and will continue.

Polluter pays. CO2 is a harmful substance as is SO2 as is CFC. There are dozens of substances and air pollution restrictions in place as there is for water both within and without national jurisdictions.

Get used to it. CO2s been added to them, whether YOU like it or not.
Decarbonization of society is here whether YOU like it or not. Done deal.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Get used to it. CO2s been added to them, whether YOU like it or not. Decarbonization of society is here whether YOU like it or not. Done deal.


It will happen _in its own time_ whether YOU like the schedule or not...King Canute. 

But if it's already settled, why are you wasting your time arguing with a bunch of Flat Earther Mac users?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Pollution is as YOU decide it is??


The sheer arrogance of using that capped "YOU" is what absolutely destroys any credibility in the man's opinions, warped as they may be. I, like the vast majority of members, do not particularly like being on the receiving end of his pompous, self inflated intellect. But that's just me.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

MasterBlaster said:


> There's enough heat in this thread to increase global warming... :yikes:


True.

And I think some folk are heading for spontaneous combustion. A couple more 'hockey-stick' references oughta do it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MasterBlaster said:


> There's enough heat in this thread to increase global warming... :yikes:


You know nothing. 

In another thread I agree with everyone. This is is what's known as an "argument offset credit."


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I believe that's "NUSS-sing."


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2377698.ece
.............................
Europe's largest wilderness is paying the price of Iceland's decision to market cheap, "green", renewable electricity to the world, as a massive new smelter nears completion. 
.............................


Sometimes people are forced to think about more than one thing at a time. I enjoy watching those times.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

I apologize for not reading the thread........ but does anybody actually thinks that there is nothing HUGE happening with the climate in the world? I don't mean to pinpoint who or what to blame (suv's, bush, saddam, the poor, the rich), but we ALL agree that the weather is acting up BIG TIME, don't we?

Who doesn't?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

gastonbuffet said:


> I apologize for not reading the thread...but we ALL agree that the weather is acting up BIG TIME, don't we?


Don't apologize...read the thread instead.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

gastonbuffet said:


> but we ALL agree that the weather is acting up BIG TIME, don't we?


It's that time of the year though, personally I love spring, no more snow please!


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Don't apologize...read the thread instead.


just answer the question, Mein fuhrer!!!!!!!!! i mean, Mac fury!
oopsss

i forsee a thread derailment


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Such a simple thing to do if he *really believed* that global warming is man-made. Shouldn't "leaders" lead by example?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....a-23ad-435e-887baa7069ca&Region_id=&Issue_id=


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

There is also a rumor that he will be fighting for the Presidency in 2008, if that is true just think of what he can do for the environment.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Al Gore is offsetting his carbon emissions against what he hopes to do to Americans in the future.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MasterBlaster said:


> I get post # 300!


Nope. You posted # 301.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Let's start another thread on how smoking is good for you.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ehMax said:


> Let's start another thread on how smoking is good for you.


There's already one about how driving while gabbing on the cell phone is good for you--would that fit the bill?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

ehMax said:


> Let's start another thread on how smoking is good for you.


They do, apparently, help control Ulcerative colitis.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Now if we are talking marijuana........


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Now if we are talking marijuana........


OK! Let's make this a joint thread then.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Glacial retreat reveals signs of human civilization:

http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html#1



> Bryson mentions the retreat of Alpine glaciers, common grist for current headlines. “What do they find when the ice sheets retreat, in the Alps?”
> 
> We recall the two-year-old report saying a mature forest and agricultural water-management structures had been discovered emerging from the ice, seeing sunlight for the first time in thousands of years. Bryson interrupts excitedly.
> 
> ...


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

> Bryson qualifies as “the father of the science of modern climatology.”


Please he's no Al Gore.  

This about sums it up:


> “Do you believe a five-day forecast?”


 :clap:


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

HowEver said:


> Everywhere but here...


When the ice retreated, I found your uncovered posts largely civilized. Please don't be so hard on yourself.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The recent five day forecast for the Victoria Day long weekend called for rain and cold for Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday.

It rained Friday, was sunny and warm Saturday, Sunday and Monday.

When they can get the five day right, I will have a glimmer of hope they can get the fifty year one right. Until such time as that occurs, they haven't a clue what they're talking about.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Ahh SINC, always ready with disinformation and false arguments...

There is a huge difference between a 3 day forecast and a much longer timeframe.
It's the long-term statistics that matter in climate.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Yes. There is a great difference between weather on the one hand and climate on the other.

Using a 5-day forecast to pronounce upon climate is rather like using one part of a meal to pronounce upon someone's overall diet.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Yes. There is a great difference between weather on the one hand and climate on the other.
> 
> Using a 5-day forecast to pronounce upon climate is rather like using one part of a meal to someone's overall diet.


Quaffer: I wish that GHG proponents would keep that in mind every time they see a warm spell, storm or a brief drought, than scream that it's proof of anthropogenic global warming.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Likewise one cannot look at the last decade, 50 years or 400 years in terms of the big climatic picture. You can't pick and choose your time period to discuss climate change. You can't conveniently omit such occurrences such as the Medieval warm period or the little ice age because it doesn't fit into a preconceived idea.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

So do I Mac. They aren't really being very accurate in their statements if that's what they're doing.

We really are talking about long term trends which have given rise to the present discourse on climate change. There are many observations which cannot be ignored, and which beg scientific scrutiny. The follow-on tendency to make predictions is natural, and easily hijacked by anyone to suit their own predilections.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Adagio, you most certainly _can_ use the past 50 years or 400 years _as part of_ the big climate picture. It then depends on how much you are going to conclude from your study and how much you might be tempted to extrapolate.

Even recurrences of the Medieval warm period and the little ice age would have huge economic impact if they were to happen quickly. (OK, OK, define 'quickly' ... I know). It's the uncertainty which is the problem. Where's it all leading?

You can't ignore the data. We are in a period of global warming. GHG concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing. Best to be observant, which is what respectable science is all about. Politics and commerce are what will govern reaction to the observations.


----------



## Calgary Guru (Apr 25, 2006)

It sure seems like the next ice age here in Calgary this spring...

Parts of NW Calgary got 14" of snow overnight. It's STILL on the ground outside my window this evening.

It's BLEEDIN' COLD too!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> You can't ignore the data. We are in a period of global warming. GHG concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing. Best to be observant, which is what respectable science is all about. Politics and commerce are what will govern reaction to the observations.


Quaffer: We still don't even know if the GHG gases follow climate change or lead it. I believe the evidence shows that they follow a warming period.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The mendacity of MacFury....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Little AS, all wrapped up in his cozy cocoon of Global Warming Conspiracy...


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Either way, doing things like reducing our dependancy on fossil fuels, using alternative energy sources like solar power, recycling more, all are good for our environment, global warming or not.

Sometimes it takes a good scare (real or not) to make people do the right thing. It doesn't matter if global warming is real or not. The fact is that the fear is pushing us to treat our planet a little better.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Guy: No problem with people treating the planet better--big problem with huge corporations making a killing on carbon trading.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Guy: No problem with people treating the planet better--big problem with huge corporations making a killing on carbon trading.


That set up yet?
I guess Billions in profit while 'effing the planet is fine....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> That set up yet?
> I guess Billions in profit while 'effing the planet is fine....


If I believed that they were "effing" the planet, I suppose I would be as morose and taciturn as you are.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Morose? Far from it.

Nice spin tactics. Once you get back to the land of sane, maybe we could debate this issue.... Of course that would be a change for you....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Little AS, all wrapped up in his cozy cocoon of Global Warming Conspiracy...


along with thousands of scientists


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> along with thousands of scientists


...thousands of scientists who understand that they will win research grants for producing research results that support anthropogenic global warming theory.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> ...thousands of scientists who understand that they will win research grants for producing research results that support anthropogenic global warming theory.


That's why you put all your faith into a few paid spinmasters on the take from big oil..... mendacious is right MF....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oh mother, the big oil conspiracy again...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Oh mother, the big oil conspiracy again...


There you go again mendacious MF… 
Just pointing out that you put your faith in climate deniers – and by coincidence many of these happen to receive funding from oil companies and other interested parties. 

Nice snarky nonsense that you spout. It a fascinating glimpse into a world of gleeful cultish thinking.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I can't wait for the great discussion on co2 leading-lagging temperature changes and the related arguments, keeping in mind that lead or lag, it does not speak to a large ramp up in GHGs in the atmosphere. I love sidebars.

Word of the day: "mendacious". AS, the problem with the smear-by-funding argument is that it goes both ways whether you like it or not. Strangely I agree with you on this (regarding funding and related results) but if you're going to pin your arguments on smear-by-funding, you will run into trouble. 

It is all too easy to do the smear as seen with every low GHG technology, from hydro to ethanol to nuclear to geothermal etc. The $ incentive is always there so if that is used as a foundation of discrediting something, rather than an adder, then everything is discredited. Besides, when $ are not involved then you've got other ways to point out self-interest.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> It a fascinating glimpse into a world of gleeful cultish thinking.



At least he's thinking.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Here is the best hour and 13 minutes you can spend to see the madness and the carefully planned panic by politicians and corporations to debunk the public on global warming:

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Corbella_Licia/2007/03/14/3748254.html

Since the original link no longer works, you can watch the entire documentary here:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

For someone who thinks that they're in the know...you should have known that this film has been debunked every which way. In fact, one of the people interviewed in the film has said that the producer had lied to him about his participation and misquoted/twisted his words significantly.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Debunked in EVERY way...by the people who receive money for predicting anthropogenice global warming? 

I can't say I blame them. Research grants are difficult to come by.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Debunked in EVERY way...by the people who receive money for predicting anthropogenice global warming?
> 
> I can't say I blame them. Research grants are difficult to come by.


You know...I've been hearing that sort of "logic" used for the past couple of years...especially after Crichton's book but you know what? Scientists don't last long if all they come up with is the same-old same-old. Researchers get grants when they come up with new and interesting twists.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

IronMac said:


> Researchers get grants when they come up with new and interesting twists.


You mean like the global warming scam? Then I agree.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

It never ceases to amaze me how SINC desperately clings to utter lies and BS such at “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. 
The fact that your “documentary” has been debunked so many times, yet like a moth to a flame you keep bringing it up makes me doubt your sanity. 
All the experts in that documentary have either been completely discredited or taken out of context (that they even complained about it). 
Any documentary that relies on Tim Ball should be viewed as total garbage. The right and those more gullible love the Timothy Ball’s because they cause some doubt. None of the doubt is ever backed with facts but the SINC’s, MF’s elevated these charlatans with a degree of religious fanaticism that would make Osama Bin Laden proud.

So SINC, apart from the being a climate change denier, maybe you could also rally your muster and insist that schools teach that kids are delivered by storks – at least you’d be equal to the stupidity of “The Great Global Warming Swindle”.

Of course if you ever come up with some peer reviewed science backing your myths, then maybe we could have an intelligent discussion.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I can't say I blame them. Research grants are difficult to come by.


You are getting quite predictable.....
Why are most scientist calling for action? Surely if they wanted money they would be calling for much more research by putting into doubt the consensus on climate change.....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I do it solely to get you to respond with your peculiar brand of accepting science unquestioned.

The only difference in our posts is your insistence of being rude and calling me names or making untrue remarks about me.

That alone shows the difference in our intellect. I'm smart enough not to fall into the trap and have my posts removed like some of yours lately.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> I do it solely to get you to respond with your peculiar brand of accepting science unquestioned.


I completely agree that science, and everything else, should be questioned. However, how many times must the questions be answered, and should we give the same weight and credibility to the questions raised by people who are expert in the field and those who are not?

The point here is that, from a scientific standpoint, we have more than enough evidence to be very concerned that human activity is having dangerous effects on the climate. You may not believe that, but you're not and expert in the field. That doesn't mean you opinion doesn't count, it just counts less than the considered opinions of the professional scientists making these claims.

So, wether you and other climate change deniers like it or not, it is incumbent on the politicians to act on the consensus of the scientific community and safeguard our society from this perceived threat. We'll see if the Conservatives have the guts to do this, and if they don't, it will be clear evidence that they do not deserve to govern.

Cheers


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> I do it solely to get you to respond with your peculiar brand of accepting science unquestioned.


Science is always reassessing itself as new knowledge comes in. The body of evidence comes from many sources and is quite transparent. You claims have no validity and would be taken seriously if they did not emerge from myth….


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The science is clearly flawed. Believe what you will.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

SINC said:


> The science is clearly flawed. Believe what you will.


And you know this because? 

If it's an unerring belief that mankind cannot affect climate then you might as well stick your head in the sand.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

IronMac said:


> And you know this because?
> 
> If it's an unerring belief that mankind cannot affect climate then you might as well stick your head in the sand.


I have never argued that mankind has not affected climate. My point is that the fear mongering going on by those who would profit from us believing the dire consequences they spew is just that, a for profit scam.

There are degrees of fear and this one is over the top.

Like I said, believe what you will.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Are you ducking the question of how you know that the science is flawed?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> So, wether [sic] you and other climate change deniers like it or not, it is incumbent on the politicians to act on the consensus of the scientific community and safeguard our society from this perceived threat.


Thankfully we have seen the world's governments respond half-heartedly to this emergency--just enough to wipe dry the tears of the very frightened, who really need the government to hold their hands until reality takes over.

We do have those vociferous countries, however, who rabidly support these ideas in the hopes that the richer nations will buy their "carbon credits" with massive influxes of cash.

The "research scientists" of the world have spoken, and the world (except those who can make a buck from the idea) has responded by not really listening.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: I note another difference. Those who find these global warming conspiracy theories unacceptable and unrealistic are content to let these sad people hold their views. They, on the other hand, become angry and spew venom when their ideas are assailed.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

IronMac said:


> Are you ducking the question of how you know that the science is flawed?


I am absolutely certain that science has been, is and will be wrong about many things in future.

The same way I know the extended forecast will be wrong at least two of the next five days. In this case practice does not make perfect, but believe what you will.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> SINC: I note another difference. Those who find these global warming conspiracy theories unacceptable and unrealistic are content to let these sad people hold their views. They, on the other hand, become angry and spew venom when their ideas are assailed.


MF, Yep, odd how they get all fussed about things, isn't it?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

IronMac said:


> Are you ducking the question of how you know that the science is flawed?


Of course MF and SINC always duck the question - it's easier than thinking.
Not once have they been able to present any credible rebuttal....

This is a rather balanced view...


> Truth is the first casualty of war. As the political battle over climate change has heated up, so has the propaganda campaign. On one side, *green activists sometimes exaggerate claims *about the possible consequences of global warming. On the other, *sceptics seize upon anything *that appears to suggest that climate change is not happening, is not due to human emissions, or will not be a problem.
> 
> *The media tend to give both of these extremes rather more column inches and airtime than they do to the mainstream scientific position.*
> 
> ...


Climate myths: Assessing the evidence - climate-change - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> Of course, few people have the time to wade through the scientific literature weighing up the evidence and trying to work out which findings have or have not stood up to scrutiny. Fortunately, when it comes to climate change, there is an organisation that does exactly this for us: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).


Sure, AS, since you're too busy to think, why not let the United Nations tell you what's what--they've always been right in the past, haven't they?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

*People not to blame for global warming*

cbs4.com - Wx Expert: People Not To Blame For Global Warming



> Wx Expert: People Not To Blame For Global Warming
> 
> (CBS4) MIAMI Dr.William Gray is widely respected in the scientific community. He is a professor in the department of atmospheric science at Colorado State University and says it's much too early to blame people for global warming.
> 
> ...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> *People not to blame for global warming*
> 
> cbs4.com - Wx Expert: People Not To Blame For Global Warming


:lmao: :lmao: 

Nice one!
For every one of these I can find ten who say different.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> *People not to blame for global warming*
> 
> cbs4.com - Wx Expert: People Not To Blame For Global Warming


As I've said before, among scientists, there will always be disagreement, and certainty is rare.

The point is that, as a society we have a decision to make: do we act on the recommendations of the scientific community (in which there is an almost unprecedented consensus that human activity is affecting the climate, Dr. Grey's objections notwithstanding), and if so, what resources should be allocated to this effort. In making such decisions, the potential risks of each type of error need to be considered (i.e. "What if we retool our economy to be carbon-neutral and the scientists are wrong?" and "What if we ignore the scientists and they're right.").

It seems pretty clear to me that the long term costs to society of shifting to a carbon-neutral economy are negligible, because we have to do it anyway even if global warming is a non-issue. So the worst case scenario of acting aggressively on the recommendations of the scientific community is that we make these changes a little sooner than we have to.

In contrast, it's equally obvious that the costs of the opposite error - ignoring the warning and having it turn out to be correct - are catastrophic and may even represent a serious threat to our civilization.

So the prudent course of action is unequivocal. Fortunately, there does appear to be some movement in this direction. Despite continued balking from the usual suspects (i.e. big oil and their political puppets), green tech and other GHG-reducing efforts are underway and making big money around the world. The only question is whether Canada will be on this bandwagon or under it.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

*Consensus on Anthropogenice Global Warming non-existent: study*

Oreseks' abstracts



> Update: The Oreskes abstracts
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MF, more misleading articles that advance nothing….


> Undeniable Global Warming
> By Naomi Oreskes
> 
> Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It's time to lay that misapprehension to rest. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it.
> ...


Undeniable Global Warming (washingtonpost.com)


> A flaw in the essay was, as Oreskes later conceded, that the keywords she searched weren’t “climate change”, but “global climate change”.


Naomi Oreskes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> *Consensus on Anthropogenice Global Warming non-existent: study*
> 
> Oreseks' abstracts


Interesting link. I'm not going to dispute his point because I haven't had (nor will I likely have) time to go through the thousands of references sited by both Dr. Oreskes and Dr. Peiser and do the analysis my self, however, it should be noted that Dr. Peiser is a vociferous critic of climate change research, and his stated position on what should be done about global warming is "_ maintain my confident view of humankind that has been capable of coping with whatever nature has thrown at us for millions of years."

So he is hardly an unbiased commentator.

Cheers_


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

bryanc said:


> Interesting link. I'm not going to dispute his point because I haven't had (nor will I likely have) time to go through the thousands of references sited by both Dr. Oreskes and Dr. Peiser and do the analysis my self, however, it should be noted that Dr. Peiser is a vociferous critic of climate change research, and his stated position on what should be done about global warming is "_ maintain my confident view of humankind that has been capable of coping with whatever nature has thrown at us for millions of years."
> 
> So he is hardly an unbiased commentator.
> _


_

He seems to have "evolved" somewhat.



He purported to do a similar survey with different results. His letters [4] were rejected by the editors of Science. A crucial subset of his survey's results was posted and analyzed [5] by blogger Tim Lambert, and *Dr. Peiser later conceded [6] that his survey contained some errors*, though he maintains that the substance of his criticism of Oreskes's essay remains valid.

Dr. Peiser has recently conceded in a letter to the Australian Media Watch that he no longer maintains one of his criticisms, and that *he no longer doubts *that "an overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."

Click to expand...

Source Wiki...._


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> "However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."


If we define consensus as: "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole,"

...then I agree that the group of scientists supporting anthropogenic Global Warming are in consensus. Beyond that, I don't believe we can call it a consensus.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

:yawn: 
It's nice to see that you continue to view the problem as non-existant based on your faith (or is that political views?). 
Nevertheless the Science behind Global warming is solid. 
Your attempts at trying to amplify "uncertainty" are akin to a petulant little child who's thinks he's been deprived....


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

bryanc said:


> So he is hardly an unbiased commentator.


Who is?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I see AS is stamping his little foot again...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I see AS is stamping his little foot again...


This is the same lame response we see from the right wing all the time. "Always accuse those who accuse you of the same thing you are being accused of."
As I said: lame.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yes, Martman, I take my marching orders from Donald Rumsfeld.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I see AS is stamping his little foot again...


It's a bit perplexing that you'd mistake a "yawn" for anger...

But understandable given that you have yet made a coherent argument.

Does mendacious little MF need a nap? I know it’s frustrating when all that you have put forth has been a pile of steaming manure. You should really research your arguments instead of posting the amateurish and predictable drivel that you try and past as “proof” or points.

Well, at least you have faith, too bad you don’t have facts.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Who is?


The person that MF quoted (who has since changed his tune on what he previous said).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> The person that MF quoted (who has since changed his tune on what he previous said).


I requote him from your own link:



> "However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Quoting out of context (again) arent's you?



> Dr. Peiser has recently conceded in a letter to the Australian Media Watch that he no longer maintains one of his criticisms, and that he no longer doubts that "an overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."


maybe I should add that most of the "unanimous" are quarks, charlatans and have no reviewed papers, only seeking headlines and/or paid lobbyist... They may represent a fringe element akin to those who think that the earth is flat. It should be noted that these "rebels" are elevated to religious cult status by the likes of MF and SINC... beejacon


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You'll see.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> The person that MF quoted (who has since changed his tune on what he previous said).


No, who is unbiased these days? I don't think anyone from either side can prove they are or are not biased. Seems to me if you are going to discredit someone because they are biased one way, then they all should be discredited.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Seems to me if you are going to discredit someone because they are biased one way, then they all should be discredited.


One of the beauties of science is that the credibility of the proponent/critic has no bearing on the outcome. The parsimony of the theory and reproducibility of the data are all that matters. With respect to the anthropocentric causes of global climate change, the evidence is fairly compelling that we're having a significant impact. Clearly there are many other factors, but we can't alter the sun's energy output, whereas we can reduce our GHG emissions, so that is clearly what we ought to do.

Cheers


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> No, who is unbiased these days? I don't think anyone from either side can prove they are or are not biased. Seems to me if you are going to discredit someone because they are biased one way, then they all should be discredited.


That's like saying that two+two is not equal to four....
There are people who don't have an agenda to push and are doing it for the research. 

You can discredit someone by having his work peer reviewed. Something that the Tim Ball's refuse to have done (it would take away was little credibility they hand unto).


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

So again, who is unbiased from the pro ghg reduction side?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> So again, who is unbiased from the pro ghg reduction side?


It's a misnomer to use "pro ghg reduction side". 
The scientific method used today, places the burden of proof on papers presented by scientists. It's peer reviewed and usually quite sound before it's accepted by the scientific community. 
There is a conscensus.


There is (and rightfully so) debate about the severity of changes but the basics points have been accepted.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Start from the position that everyone is biased, which is not an unreasonable starting position. The next step is to have it out with data, modelling, theoretical underpinnings etc. The result of that is quite conclusive, although not 100% (what is?).

Now, when non-experts wade in with their bias, they can joyfully sidestep such things and, to put it one way, accentuate the positive for their established bias. They start with a belief (like, arguably, all people do) but do not have to take part in the full back-and-forth evidence ("science"). They can cherry pick because, well, they've got better things to do than prove something to themselves. They started out with all the proof they need (personal politics and such). 

This is very similar to how nuclear energy is often approached. Find a juicy dissenting quote here, some contextless stats there and you are done. Dangers and uncertainties, as well as geopolitical machinations suddenly become proof positive with the right spin. 

Removing context and treating all analysis as he said/she said (instead of following through on the logic) is useful for this and, because it applies so often to things political, such approaches just slip into the discussion. Suddenly certainty and uncertainty no longer matters; things are Known and Unknown.

The same goes for many politicised items. No amount of data, analysis or statements of likelihood matter to some (not all). It is simply about deciding what is liked, what is not and finding the appropriate links from that point onwards.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> Start from the position that everyone is biased, which is not an unreasonable starting position. The next step is to have it out with data, modelling, theoretical underpinnings etc. The result of that is quite conclusive, although not 100% (what is?).


Very nicely put. Science offers evidence without certainty, whereas dogma offers certainty without evidence.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc: I'd almost agree with the comparison of science and dogma, although it certainly sounds better in the short version.

What I've found with dogmatists is that they offer certainty _using any_ evidence. 

Many of the dogmatists I've seen argue happily about the age of the world (7,000 years) using scientific facts. Once you take away the facts or explain that they've been misused, you realize that science is just a first ring of defense they use to fight off their weaker opponents. Deep down, their core belief remains unassailable.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

*Just for MF*

Crooks and Liars » Who Doesn’t Believe in Evolution?

Rather amusing to see who raises their hand...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: I honestly can't even see wichh one is raising his hand. But I appreciate that the Constitution of that country allows them to do so without fear.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Thousands of scientists and not a single name you can think of?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I appreciate that the Constitution of that country allows them to do so without fear.


So do I. Call me a bleeding heart liberal, but I do think a society that protects and cares for it's mental defectives is better than one that doesn't. 

But what worries me is that it appears that a significant proportion of americans are willing to vote for these bozos.

Cheers


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Several raised their hands. Maybe one did so some of the others thought they should too. ("Hell, he's not getting _more_ attention than me!")

What a shower of prats.

_Cue music (of a quasi-martial variety)._ Misty-eyed patriots all ...

Sorry, but I can't see any merit in the murk of medieval dogma and ignorance that seems to be fashionable in the anterooms and corridors of power of the Greatest Nation the Universe has ever seen.

Monty Python - you have a lot to answer for! :lmao:

How long before it's 'un-American' to believe in evolution? :lmao:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> AS: I honestly can't even see wichh one is raising his hand. But I appreciate that the Constitution of that country allows them to do so without fear.


(That's Brownback, Tancredo and Huckabee with their hands up.)


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

This just in,

Top NASA official and former head of the space department at the Applied Physics Laboratory of Johns Hopkins University Michael Griffin guilty of global warming blasphemy!  NASA scientist and Star of Al Gore's award winning horror flick quickly springs into damage control mode to neutralize the unruly beast.
Sounds like another one caught in the clutches of big oil $$ 

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3229696&page=1

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



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

"Residents of St. John's — like other parts of Newfoundland and Labrador — have been dealing with a cold, wet spring. The average temperature in May has been 5.5 C." CBC.com


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

> "I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists," Griffin told Inskeep. "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with."
> 
> "To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change," Griffin said. "I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."


Drivel. The poor old thing should have not bothered getting up that day.



> "I have no doubt ... I am not sure ... "


Is he channelling Dr. Seuss?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Quaffer: 

1) Why is it drivel? Many on this forum have been quick to embrace any data from NASA that supports their ideas about anthropogenic global warming.

2) Why did you edit his comments to:



> "I have no doubt ... I am not sure ... "


When he actually said: "



> *I have no doubt* that a trend of global warming exists," Griffin told Inskeep. "*I am not sure* that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with."


*You* may be he one channeling Dr. Seuss here....


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

It's drivel because it's virtually content-free. Convoluted and sort of weasely worded.

But, notwithstanding that he must adhere to the corporate mindset (the sort of thing we always used to berate that late great Satan, the USSR, for), he does live in the Land of The Free and so he speaks out. Bravo!

And I forgive you for the impertinence you displayed in 'penning' point 2 of your post.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> It's drivel because it's virtually content-free. Convoluted and sort of weasely worded.


That's funny, I found It to be an opinion based on years of research with NASA.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> That's funny, I found It to be an opinion based on years of research with NASA.


You're entitled to form an opinion as you wish, JJ. Always room for humour, I say.

Who really knows _why_ he said what he said?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Who really knows _why_ he said what he said?


Maybe he said it because he's analyzed the situation and thats the conclusion he's come to? 

Or its one of the usual popular reasons...

1) A brinks truck full of money was sent to his place from EXONs covert anti-global warming task force.
2) He's a "flat earther" out of touch with modern science. Clearly unqualified to hold an opinion on this subject.
3) The evil George Bush made him say it, threatening a vacation at Guantanamo
4) He's likely one of those crackpot "scientists" that told us smoking was totally benign.
5) He's lost his mind and should be sent to the scientific leper colony with the handful of other deniers.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I'm sure we're going to hear all of their excuses so let's make it easy for them:
6) All of the above.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacGuiver: In fact, to use the argument style used by many of the Greenhouse Gas Team at EhMac--since NASA actually benefits financially from predicting the dire results of human produced CO2, this person must_ really_ be telling the truth because he refuses to follow the money.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macfury said:


> MacGuiver: In fact, to use the argument style used by many of the Greenhouse Gas Team at EhMac--since NASA actually benefits financially from predicting the dire results of human produced CO2, this person must_ really_ be telling the truth because he refuses to follow the money.


Yeah and not to mention the fact that deviating from "the consensus" will make him a scientific pariah. He's putting his career on the line expressing his dissenting opinion.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I wonder why it seems that Griffen said is diametrically opposed to his chief climatologist, Jim Hansen has written. 

Not to deflate some of flat-earthers here but reading the transcript of the interview he said:


> It has been mentioned that NASA is not spending as much money as it could to study climate change — global warming — from space. Are you concerned about global warming?
> I'm aware that global warming exists. I understand that the bulk of scientific evidence accumulated supports the claim that we've had about a one degree centigrade rise in temperature over the last century to within an accuracy of 20 percent. I'm also aware of recent findings that appear to have nailed down — pretty well nailed down the conclusion that much of that is manmade. Whether that is a longterm concern or not, I can't say.


How has the scientific community reacted? This is not the usual restrain…
Jim Hansen, who works for Griffin: "I almost fell off my chair. *It's remarkably uninformed*."

Berrien Moore, director, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space at the University of New Hampshire: "I don't understand it. *I'm really stunned that he could say something like that. I mean, I really find it shocking*."

Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences at Princeton University: "It's astounding that the head of a major US science agency could hold such attitudes, *basically ignorance about the global warming problem*. In fact, it's so astounding that I think he should resign."

Jerry Mahlman, a former top scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and now a member of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, saying Griffin's remarks suggest Griffin is either "*totally clueless*" or "a deep anti-global warming ideologue."

Now if only of the climate change deniers could prove that it’s not happening instead of acting like four year olds….

Now, what does the WhiteHouse think?


> NASA spokesman David Mould said the NPR interviewer was trying to push Griffin into saying something about global warming. NASA’s position is that it provides scientific data on the issue, but policymakers decide, he said.
> The White House’s science adviser Jack Marburger also tried to dismiss Griffin’s ignorance, insisting the NASA administrator was joking:
> “It’s pretty obvious that the *NASA administrator was speaking about his own personal views* and by no means representing or attempting to represent the administration’s views or broader policy,” Marburger said. *“He’s got a very wry sense of humor and is very outspoken.“*


I think that his comments were acceptable until he started to infuse speculation on the effects of climate change and injecting (albeit softly) politics into this.



PS his career is safe - he's a Bush appointee....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: Of course they're saying that. It erodes the likelihood of more global warming studies being funded. To quote Bugs Bunny: "Oh brother, there goes me bread and butter."


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> AS: Of course they're saying that. It erodes the likelihood of more global warming studies being funded. To quote Bugs Bunny: "Oh brother, there goes me bread and butter."


Given that:
#1- Scientists are asking to implement solutions, not more research.
#2- Have you seen how much a scientist make? Better to work for the oil lobby.
#3- That's quite the conspiracy theory MF.... Show me proof of a gaggle of organized Scientists doing this for money....
#4- So much for peer review work....beejacon 
#5- If they really wanted to make money, there is nothing better than proving everyone wrong (instead of jumping on the bandwagon as you state).

Continue on with your religious zeal....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Given that:
> #1- Scientists are asking to implement solutions, not more research.
> #2- Have you seen how much a scientist make? Better to work for the oil lobby.
> #3- That's quite the conspiracy theory MF.... Show me proof of a gaggle of organized Scientists doing this for money....
> ...


1) Scientists rarely implement anything. Technologists do.
2) Not every scientist is good enough to get a job with the oil industry.
3) They are not otganized enough to do this; they just read the direction of the wind.
4) I think peer review probably eliminates a lot of "Inconvenient truths" about the cyclical nature of the climate.
5) Agreed. But they could make more money proving everyone wrong, only if the new conclusions frightened someone. "A little bit cooler" won't cut it--it would have to predict an Ice Age.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> 1) Scientists rarely implement anything. Technologists do.


That's his point... the scientific community is saying "we've studied this problem enough. We don't need any more money to fund more studies. We think it's time to do something about it!"



> 2) Not every scientist is good enough to get a job with the oil industry.


 If you think the oil companies have the best scientists working for them, it's no wonder you have such strange ideas about what science is about.



> 3) They are not otganized enough to do this; they just read the direction of the wind.


Yes, climatologists are very interested in the wind. but not the political kind.



> 4) I think peer review probably eliminates a lot of "Inconvenient truths" about the cyclical nature of the climate.


You, and a few others around here seem convinced that there's a global conspiracy of scientists who are making gobs of money from publishing research that says we have a problem that needs immediate attention. Did you watch a lot of TV as a kid?



> 5) Agreed. But they could make more money proving everyone wrong


Most scientists could make a lot more money flipping burgers. But (and I think this is the key to the difficulty you're having with understanding scientists) scientists aren't in this for the money. Scientists are trying to understand nature, regardless of how profitable or expensive that may be.

Cheers.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc: They could make even more money flipping burgers for the oil industry in Fort MacMurray!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Most scientists could make a lot more money flipping burgers.


A nice line, but I get the feeling that you don't know the kind of money most scientists make, even allowing that "flipping burgers" was used for fun, not accuracy. I know that you've commented before about a sort of perceived inadequacy, but most scientists do quite well for themselves. The top ones can do very well. 

Here's an example, although I'm not sure how complete the source is.
http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/sciencesalaries.html

And, like any other people, money can play a large role in the career decisions of scientists.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: Judging from those salaries, most scientists could hire a private burger flipper and have money left over!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Beej: Judging from those salaries, most scientists could hire a private burger flipper and have money left over!


With a good accountant (that makes more money), they could write the burger flipper's wages off as a cost of business and save 40%! Fries with that? :heybaby:


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> A nice line, but I get the feeling that you don't know the kind of money most scientists make, even allowing that "flipping burgers" was used for fun, not accuracy.


I think I'm pretty familiar with what scientists get paid, at least in academia (and yes, the 'flipping burgers' comment was hyperbole). And, while it's true that once you get a faculty position, the salaries are reasonable, if not generous, what many (most) people are unaware of is the opportunity cost that academic scientists have invested to get these positions (4 year undergraduate degrees, 5 to 10 years of graduate school, 3 to 5 years of postdoctoral work, etc.). So an assistant professor that's making $50k/year might have what most would consider a reasonable salary, but she's probably been living in poverty for over a decade to get that job, and likely has a massive student loan to pay off.

The point I was trying to make is that research scientists (especially academic scientists) are not the kind of people who are highly motivated by money. You don't go into science if you want to get rich. The exception to this is the scientists who get tired of the financial sacrifices and pursue opportunities in industry. The obvious sacrifice one makes by taking an industry job is the constraints on your intellectual freedom (which may or may not be significant... I know industry scientists who are told what their findings must be before they begin their 'research,' but most have considerable freedom as long as their findings have some applicability to the business of the company that employs them). 

So it seems to me that, given the intellectual freedom that academics enjoy, and their fairly well established record for viewing monetary issues as secondary, suspecting them of making dire predictions in order to enrich themselves (especially when they're recommending money be spent on doing things other than research) is both irrational and unfair.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Do you continue to mnake research proposals that receive no funding or attention if other proposals surrounding the apparent dangers of global warming are receiving consisten funding and attention? 

I would go a little further to suggest that the scientists themselves are not creating the research proposls, but that administrators are creating them on behalf of employee scientists.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

The likelihood of continued funding is strongly influenced by how successful previous research has been at generating and explaining data. I.e. how much scientific progress has been made on understanding the phenomena. This progress is judged by an anonymous panel of reviewers, all of whom are well-qualified experts themselves.

So continued funding does not arise from creating false concerns, or placating the 'powers that be', but rather from generating new knowledge.



Macfury said:


> I would go a little further to suggest that the scientists themselves are not creating the research proposls, but that administrators are creating them on behalf of employee scientists.


This is certainly not the case in any research field I'm familiar with. I wish it were... I'm in the middle of writing a grant application right now, and it's a lot of work, so I'd appreciate the help.

Cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> what many (most) people are unaware of is the opportunity cost that academic scientists have invested to get these positions (4 year undergraduate degrees, 5 to 10 years of graduate school, 3 to 5 years of postdoctoral work, etc.). So an assistant professor that's making $50k/year might have what most would consider a reasonable salary, but she's probably been living in poverty for over a decade to get that job, and likely has a massive student loan to pay off.


That's all part of the investment and most people I know are aware of it. I have met many, however, that tend to overstate the opportunity cost.

Most scientists get well compensated. Like all jobs location, ability, work ethic and attitude (including playing nice with others and office/lab politics) all come into play. 

Also note the room for salary growth. $50k in and of itself is pretty good, but it can (and usually does) keep going up from there for some time while many Canadians never even reach $50k.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Canada's unsung heroes--research scientists! Earning only $50,000 per year with full knowledge of what it would take to get there, and yet they do it anyway!

Imagine what would happen if they followed their selfish desires to become doctors, firefighters or police officers?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> That's all part of the investment and most people I know are aware of it.


In a general sense, yes, people know you have to get a Ph.D if you want to be a scientist. But few, I think, appreciate how long or hard one has to work to get a tenure-track faculty job in science at a Canadian University, as compared to other jobs.



> Most scientists get well compensated. Like all jobs location, ability, work ethic and attitude (including playing nice with others and office/lab politics) all come into play.


It's certainly a very nice job once you get it, and the intangibles are far more important to most of us. 

My point was that the implication that research scientists are just pursuing the most financially profitable course when they call for action to be taken on GHGs is implausible for several reasons, not the least of which is that these are largely people who've chosen to follow their curiosity rather than higher pay.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Imagine what would happen if they followed their selfish desires to become doctors, firefighters or police officers?


Not many with strong aptitudes for science become firefighters or police officers (with the possible exception of forensic specialists). Of the many that pursue the health sciences, I think a large proportion are motivated by the high salaries in that field. What's your point? That we need more doctors? Talk to the CMA.

Unlike other professions, there is no equivalent of the Bar Association or CMA to put a cap on the number of science Ph.D.s granted every year. So the supply is not artificially constrained, and the demand for such esoteric skills is never very high, making the market rather tilted in the employer's favor. Every hiring committee I've ever been on, or had contact with, has had no difficulty soliciting a large array of exceptionally good candidates for faculty positions. That's something to keep in mind if you're thinking about pursuing a career in academia.

Cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> My point was that the implication that research scientists are just pursuing the most financially profitable course when they call for action to be taken on GHGs is implausible for several reasons


Fair enough, but the notion cannot be completely dismissed. In the end, with such a highly politicised item, researching the right things is more likely to draw more funding from the right sources and get picked up at the right conferences. Similarly, many of the scientists that tend to do research that pushes the Exxon message are quite likely already inclined that way (not just being bought off) but also know what is most likely to get the attention they want.

Money, attention etc. are not the only thing, but are not to be dismissed as influential.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Every hiring committee I've ever been on, or had contact with, has had no difficulty soliciting a large array of exceptionally good candidates for faculty positions. That's something to keep in mind if you're thinking about pursuing a career in academia.


Ah, so they're competing with each other to sacrifice their lives for science.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Ah, so they're competing with each other to sacrifice their lives for science.


Given that we've just discussed the fact that, once established, a life in science can be reasonably comfortable, and even during training, it's a lot of fun (as well as hard work) if not lucrative, why does the fact that a small proportion of curious and intellectually inclined people find the prospect attractive surprise you?

Consider that young people in the middle east are lining up to strap home-made explosives to themselves and blow themselves up because they think it will make their invisible sky-daddy happy.

Even though we're under-paid for most of our lives, at least those of us doing science enjoy what we do most of the time.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, when you put it into a context of people strapping explosives onto themselves, it all seems pretty normal.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Even though we're under-paid for most of our lives


What is your basis for this claim?

[Sidenote: Many people's skydaddies tell them that they are under-paid.]


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Even though we're under-paid for most of our lives, at least those of us doing science enjoy what we do most of the time.


While that may be correct, there are those in the field who seem to take great pleasure in stampeding the world into believing climate catastrophe is eminent. Perhaps we should see their wages are reduced proportionate to the error of their predictions by percentage? After all, most of them can't get the five day forecast right yet.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Even though we're under-paid for most of our lives, at least those of us doing science enjoy what we do most of the time.


Starting to sound like a civil servent, too bad you can't vote yourself a raise though.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> After all, most of them can't get the five day forecast right yet.


A strange comparison. 

The five day forecast may not serve your purposes for accuracy but January is predicted to be colder than July every year for us with magical accuracy. I blame a combination of alchemy and anti-sceptic cream.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> After all, most of them can't get the five day forecast right yet.


Still seeing that you don’t understand the concept of weather and climate there SINC….

I guess that the Seasons are still a hit or miss thing with Scientists also…

Now economists can predict what the stock market will do under a certain set of conditions but still can't determine stock prices hour by hour - are they also all wrong?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Now economists can predict what the stock market will do under a certain set of conditions but still can't determine stock prices hour by hour - are they also all wrong?


Would you place all of your money on the line based on their prediction?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Would you place all of your money on the line based on their prediction?


Yes - many people do also. I trust overall trends.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Now economists can predict what the stock market will do under a certain set of conditions but still can't determine stock prices hour by hour - are they also all wrong?


Judging by the performance of my portfolio from 1980 through 2000, yes, absolutely. Since I took it out of the hands of so called professionals, it has performed better than double what they produced with just me and my corner banker.

While that has been good news for me, it has done nothing to convince me to believe the professionals on climate change are any more accurate than my old financial advisors.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

There is currently a category 5 cyclone in the Persian Gulf.



> Even with the weaker wind speeds, Gonu would be the strongest cyclone to hit the Arabian Peninsula since record keeping started in 1945, Roche said.
> 
> A cyclone is the term used for hurricanes in the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific.


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Oman_Cyclone.html



> A Category 5 cyclone with winds of up to 195 mph is heading toward one of the world's most productive energy basins, threatening local devastation and global disruption at a point at which oil prices are already flirting with record highs


http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=289703&selected=Analyses


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Yes - many people do also. I trust overall trends.


You would eh, so have you?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

JJ, I don't think AS is referring to jumping in with all his savings on the word of one unknown analyst (correct me if I'm wrong AS, or just for fun if you like).

Long-range retirement planning should include a lot of equities instead of bonds. As you get closer to retirement, and relying upon non-salary income (drawing down your savings), the standard advice is to shift into more dependable equities (blue chips, good dividends) and more bonds because you no longer have the time horizon to "see through" the ups and downs of the stock market.

Aside: Personally, with 80 year lifespans, freedom 55, and lots of fulfilling part-time work after retirement for many people, I think the shift to lower risk investments can be put off for some time for many people.

It's always possible for government bonds to outperform equities, particularly in shorter timeframes, but the long-run evidence and theory are quite sound: risk versus reward.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Beej said:


> JJ, I don't think AS is referring to jumping in with all his savings on the word of one unknown analyst (correct me if I'm wrong AS, or just for fun if you like).


His point was that economists can predict what the stock market will do, just as GHG scientists can accurately predict our climate so much so he would wager all his money on it. Which is a pretty bold statement, saying it is one thing, doing it is another, I don't believe there is the same level of commitment for AS on both sides of this coin. If their predictions are like money in the bank, investing everything where they say would be a no-brainer right? 

So the point I'm trying to make is if you follow like sheep for the GHG scientists without thinking twice or asking questions then why not with all of your money with an economist? My obvious answer would be because they aren't 100% acurate, but I'm a flat-earther, what do I know?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Green party plan to reduce GHGs:
Green Party of Canada | Averting Climate Catastrophe: Green Party lays out roadmap to Canada's low-carbon future | www.greenparty.ca

You can see a few struggles in here:
1) Real market policies that work versus growing political awareness of feasibility
2) Old environmentalism that just does not like certain things in any context and likes pipe dreams
3) Bizarro
"Ensure that federal disaster assistance is subject to carbon conditionality clauses by provinces and cities – similar to an insurance company refusing coverage on a building that does not meet the code requirements for fire safety." 

Still, lots of good ideas to steal.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> His point was that economists can predict what the stock market will do
> ...
> If their predictions are like money in the bank, investing everything where they say would be a no-brainer right?
> ...
> ...


Predict the stock market? I think you trend to read too much into it. 
...
So, when you're young, invest in stocks not bonds. Again, the difference is long-term trends versus short-term. Weather versus climate. 
...
Quite the assumption. Think twice, thrice and more! This may be a shock, but some climate change "believers" have thought quite a bit about it.

But pre-biasing the conclusions, or setting 100% accuracy standards (essentially, pre-biasing conclusions) is not thinking.
...
100% accuracy is not the issue or, if it is, good luck doing anything. Do you have 100% accuracy about your likelihood of being able to survive crossing a busy street? Seems like an odd standard to set that is not used for so many other decisions in life. 100% certainty that your food is not tainted?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

So how then is predicting the weather and climate not the same if they are both are equally inaccurate? Seems to me you allow them to be wrong on one thing and not the other, yet now you are saying they are never accurate, which is it?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

JJ: Climate change supporters only cherry pick the predictions that suit their particular view. They never recognize the flawed science it is based on given the track record of science predicting weather in the short term.

Extrapolate the errors in the short term science over hundreds of years and the possibility of error as a percentile becomes enormous, but the GHGers won't admit that fact.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> JJ, I don't think AS is referring to jumping in with all his savings on the word of one unknown analyst (correct me if I'm wrong AS, or just for fun if you like).


You are correct Beej.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> So how then is predicting the weather and climate not the same if they are both are equally inaccurate? Seems to me you allow them to be wrong on one thing and not the other, yet now you are saying they are never accurate, which is it?


Everyday we make decisions based upon our uncertain view of the future but, for some, climate change requires 100% accuracy. That's just a pre-determined conclusion masquerading as thinking.

How do we magically know that January is colder than July?

How do we know that stocks are most likely a better long-term investment strategy than bonds, but without 100% certainty?

Trends. You seem to be using the word "accurate" in a binary sense, as in 100% accurate or otherwise. That is a mistake. Add to this the risk of getting it wrong.

The risk of losing $1 is different than $1,000. 

So, what do you mean by "equally inaccurate"?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> JJ: Climate change supporters only cherry pick the predictions that suit their particular view. They never recognize the flawed science it is based on given the track record of science predicting weather in the short term.
> 
> Extrapolate the errors in the short term science over hundreds of years and the possibility of error as a percentile becomes enormous, but the GHGers won't admit that fact.


SINC, I can predict that where I live, summers will be warm, and winter cold. 
I'm not sure if you are wilfully misunderstanding science or maybe you think you are clever.... 
Either way, you are wrong in your assessment. 

Climate and weather are different. One involves averages and the probability of events.
Ignorance is not an excuse to keep on using wrong analogies SINC, since you have been corrected many times.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> SINC, I can predict that where I live, summers will be warm, and winter cold.
> I'm not sure if you are wilfully misunderstanding science or maybe you think you are clever....
> Either way, you are wrong in your assessment.
> 
> ...


You see AS, I don't consider you in any position to correct me.

Nor I you.

At least I have the decency to keep my mouth shut about correcting you. 

I would appreciate it if you returned the favour. 

Carry on with promoting your flawed ideas.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Extrapolate the errors in the short term science over hundreds of years and the possibility of error as a percentile becomes enormous, but the GHGers won't admit that fact.


This is a common mistake. Forecasting the average temperature is very different from daily temperature.

In economics, it's like forecasting quarterly GDP growth versus the annual level of GDP. Quarterly growth could be -3%, +1%, +4% etc. That looks like a large range of error. That's weather (weather does affect quarterly GDP growth).

But, the total annual GDP forecast is $1,300,000,000,000 or $1,250,000,000,000 or $1,350,000,000,000 etc. 

Again, it's about trends. If you want 100% accuracy for predicting the future, good luck but, and this should be obvious, "accuracy" is not on/off, 0/1, either/or.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> This is like comparing peeling potatoes with marmalade to observing a syphilitic albino monkey writing Shakespeare....


Only one who practices such things on a regular basis could know of this comparison.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Now there is a question that is easy to answer. You see Bryanc, I do not totally dismiss the science of climatology


Hey any other sciences you interested in dismissing? I hear some parts of physics are pretty wonky... let's throw that out too. And how about archeology... c'mon everyone knows the bible said the earth is only 6000 years old.

But hey those phrenology guys were on to something.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Hey any other sciences you interested in dismissing?


Apparently your comprehension abilities are not up to par this morning. I wrote:

"I do NOT totally dismiss the science of climatology."


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Apparently your comprehension abilities are not up to par this morning. I wrote:
> 
> "I do NOT totally dismiss the science of climatology."


Ahhh I see, so It's kind of like you don't agree with the "E" part of E=MC2 is that it?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Now there is a question that is easy to answer. You see Bryanc, I do not totally dismiss the science of climatology which appears to be the point most of you are missing. There is likely a fair bit of truth in what scientists are saying, but the element of room for error leaves me with no other conclusion than they are alarmists.


Okay, perhaps I misinterpreted your position earlier. It's perfectly reasonable (and I would say highly desirable) to remain skeptical about these and all issues. And 'follow the money' is a general rule that will often help you sort out the genuine from the scam.

However, to equate 'room for error' with 'alarmist' strikes me as perverse in this case. In science there is _always_ uncertainty. Unfortunately, our society has a long history of ignoring well-founded (but uncertain) warnings of impending ecological or other catastrophes from the scientific community, which have inevitably been born out pretty much as predicted.

In this case, the changes the scientific community recommends are changes we have to make anyway, regardless of global climate change. So the only question is 'now or later'?

Obviously, when you're talking about billions of dollars, there are going to be lots of people who've got something to gain or something to loose, who are going to argue strenuously that 'now' or 'later' is the best course of action.

But as I keep saying here and elsewhere, if we do it now, and it turns out the scientists were wrong, we'll have lost some money, but we'll be in a better position for long term economic growth, and we'll have solved a problem that had to be solved eventually anyway. In contrast, if we ignore the scientists (as usual) and put off solving this problem until later, but it turns out that the scientists are right (as usual), we'll have another major catastrophe that could cause massive global economic disruption, species extinctions, and potentially even threaten the stability of our civilization.

So the prudent course of action seems obvious to me. But even if you completely disagree, and are willing to risk the potentially dire consequences of getting it wrong, it's becoming clear that Europe and even much of North America is tooling up for a major 'greening' of our economies, and Canada can either get on that bandwagon or get run over by it. So from a purely pragmatic business standpoint, it's still time to start developing and selling 'carbon-neutral' sustainable green technologies.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Ahhh I see, so It's kind of like you don't agree with the "E" part of E=MC2 is that it?


Not at all. It's more like the I don't agree with the "P" in climatology.

For the uninformed, their fear mongering campaign is designed to attempt to make the earth's air a commodity and thereby make a PROFIT for big business and government.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> "I do NOT totally dismiss the science of climatology."


- I smell B.S.
- That's quite the nose stretcher, SINC
- Funny that, given that you latch on to ANY climate change deniers with religious zeal


Scientists to not politicize their findings. 
You may want to debate the conclusions with earth-muffin types....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Not at all. It's more like the I don't agree with the "P" in climatology.
> 
> For the uninformed, their fear mongering campaign is designed to attempt to make the earth's air a commodity and thereby make a PROFIT for big business and government.


How does this change from Big Oil in Alberta 'effing up the environment and your glorious leader with his tepid endorsement of "intensity based" babbling?

The "uninformed" here would be those that are obtuse and dishonest. There is a problem and it's about time that polluters pay their share for 'effing up the environment.
Your weak posturing and contradictions equate confusion.

The biggest increase to Canada's GHG comes from the tar sands - we can start there. There are free at the moment from any meaningful limits.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Not at all. It's more like the I don't agree with the "P" in climatology.
> 
> For the uninformed, their fear mongering campaign is designed to attempt to make the earth's air a commodity and thereby make a PROFIT for big business and government.


Ahhh but its OK to make Forestry, Fisheries as well as Oil and Gas commodities a part of big business and government?

What's next? commoditizing water? I never realized that under that Albertan heart you were such an environmental socialist.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I find it quite humourous that you zealots are so agitated by my position. Fact is I could give a rat's behind about yours and it doesn't even bother me that you choose to follow the rest of the lemmings.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> But even if you completely disagree, and are willing to risk the potentially dire consequences of getting it wrong...


Yes, exactly. I am willing to risk these potentially dire consequences.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

If it amuses you so much, how about not commenting when a lemming post?

Keep you fallacious views to yourself and enjoy the bubble of your own self-created reality.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> I find it quite humourous that you zealots are so agitated by my position. Fact is I could give a rat's behind about yours and it doesn't even bother me that you choose to follow the rest of the lemmings.


SINC: It's like that scene in _Midnight Express_ where the lifers are walking in endless circles around a pillar and the new guy walks in the opposite direction. They just start beating him up because they can't conceive of such a monstrously alternative lifestyle.

Stop making them uncomfortable, SINC. "Now sign zee paper und admit zat Global Varming is caused by der people!"


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Yes, exactly. I am willing to risk these potentially dire consequences.


I'd be trying to find ways to avoid certain pitfalls such as this:


> The EU's carbon trading scheme has increased electricity bills, given a windfall to power companies and failed to cut greenhouse gases, it is claimed.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/file_on_4/6720119.stm
or 



> The carbon market is working, but not bringing forth as much innovation as had been hoped


http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9217960


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> If it amuses you so much, how about not commenting when a lemming post?
> 
> Keep you fallacious views to yourself and enjoy the bubble of your own self-created reality.


Everyone has the right to express their own "bubbles" of reality. We might ask you to keep your fealty to the old guard Liberal Party stifled, but that would be asking too much.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> We might ask you to keep your fealty to the old guard Liberal Party stifled, but that would be asking too much.


You could ask, and I would likely laugh at the idiocy of your statement. 
I've stated that I'm voting BQ in the next Federal elections... the only party to stand up for Canada.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Yes, exactly. I am willing to risk these potentially dire consequences.


If it was your planet, that would by your right. But it completely ignores the point I was trying to make. The science is now largely irrelevant, because the issue has become politicized and turned into a business. The fact is there's a lot of money to be made in developing carbon-neutral, sustainable/green technologies, and Canada can (and I think should) be playing a leading (and lucrative) role in that economic development. Or we can play the role of the environmentally irresponsible bad-guys who drag their feet, pollute indiscriminately, and continue with business as usual. Which course of action do you think will be more profitable in the long run?

Cheers


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Bryan, I'd rather futile to talk about free market, opportunity, business, innovation and competition to a bunch of Conservatives... something about being an entrepreneur scares them....


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

At the risk of derailing this thread again, a friend of mine just sent me this URL and I thought it was funny and relevant to the earlier discussion of how much money scientists got paid.

click here

Edit: hmmm... it seems that some firewall somewhere was breaking the image linked above. So I've changed it to a URL


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Or we can play the role of the environmentally irresponsible bad-guys who drag their feet, pollute indiscriminately, and continue with business as usual.


If it referred only to so-called "carbon-dioxide pollution," I support that role heartily.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I support that role heartily.


You're obviously entitled to your opinions, but unless you can produce some peer-reviewed scientific support for your position, you opinions don't carry much weight.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> You're obviously entitled to your opinions, but unless you can produce some peer-reviewed scientific support for your position, you opinions don't carry much weight.


Thankfully there are many others like me who will foot drag, obfuscate and complain until the whole effort becomes irrelevant.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Thankfully there are many others like me who will foot drag, obfuscate and complain until the whole effort becomes irrelevant.


I bet that these are the same that want corporate welfare and public risk for private gain....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> I bet that these are the same that want corporate welfare and public risk for private gain....


We'll have to agree to disagree on those matter.


----------



## Amtekoth (Jun 6, 2007)

bryanc said:


> At the risk of derailing this thread again, a friend of mine just sent me this URL and I thought it was funny and relevant to the earlier discussion of how much money scientists got paid.
> 
> click here
> 
> Edit: hmmm... it seems that some firewall somewhere was breaking the image linked above. So I've changed it to a URL


Comicgenesis prevents direct hotlinking of the image.

Thanks for the mention, by the way.


----------

