# Stern costs.....pay me now....pay me MORE later



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Much in here I didn't realize o the impact on food supply - including in Canada.



> New crops needed to avoid famines
> By Richard Black
> Environment correspondent, BBC News website
> 
> ...


there's more - a good read
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6200114.stm

and for Canada










Alaska as the only remaining wheat producer for the US !!!!!! 



> "It's much easier to solve a problem before we get to a crisis. With climate change we're definitely talking about a crisis, and it's coming within our lifetimes."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Another global warming thread? Sweet.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

On the other hand...we will be RICH!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

This is likely one of the better looks at the costs right NOW that are hitting parts of North America



> A Dream Blown Away
> *Climate Change Already Has a Chilling Effect on Where Americans Can Build Their Homes*
> By Joel Garreau
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> ...


5 well written pages - I'd hate to be a home owner under those conditions - what a bind - stay put and risk it all with no insurance or lose the dream.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101759.html

••••••••

Go play in the kiddies box MF - you've demonstrated your mental age quite remarkably, no need to embarrass yourself further.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's looking at the price of insurance, not the costs of global warming. 

The cost of replacing property continues to rise, as doesthe number of people claiming. Coastal areas tradiaitonally have a high incidence of property damage. The insurance industry now has a reason to raise the price of insurance to reflect the risk of living in flood prone areas.

Now be a nice Doc and move all of this to the official GHG category, created just for your many global warming topics.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No excuses



> *Shell CEO berates America for spurning Kyoto*
> 
> JIM KRANE
> Associated Press
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061204.wshell1204/BNStory/Business/home

Somebody email a copy of this to Stelmach and Harper


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Follow the money--and put these posts in the official GHG thread.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

It would be easier is MF just ignored these post or discussed the issues at hand (if so inclined). Instead we get his contribution to hot air...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Attaboy MF! Keep 'em honest.


----------



## Fox (Oct 4, 2002)

I don't know what the GHG thread is, but I for one am glad MacDoc posted the link to this article in a thread that attracted my attention! I already emailed it to several friends who are interested in global warming impacts and may not have seen the Washington Post story.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Fox said:


> I don't know what the GHG thread is, but I for one am glad MacDoc posted the link to this article in a thread that attracted my attention! I already emailed it to several friends who are interested in global warming impacts and may not have seen the Washington Post story.


Hint: GHG = Green House Gas.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

For MF et al......'bout right.

















Dr. Fox - if you wish to observe puerile denial at it's very finest be sure to visit the Official GHG thread. Some find shelter in grade 4 humour when they can't defend their position.
Neither global climate change nor this thread will go away......the "chattering class" might we could hope.

BTW for those that may not know Dr. Fox.

http://www.trentu.ca/academic/ers/Fox.shtml

I was also surprised to find an article of that scope in the Washington Post. Glad you found it useful and it was circulated. Maybe Stern was wrong.......on the low side for costs......and much sooner than anticipated.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Update on this *Super Typhoon a month for 4 months running now.*

The death toll is now over 1000 and rising - the typhoon came ashore with winds at 165 mph .......265 kph for the math challenged.
If that had hit Manilla  !!!
By comparison Katrina was 140 mph.
New Orleans 1/10th the size of Manilla.

In the "If you ignore it will go away"......NOT!!...category

The winner is












> *Durian was the fourth super typhoon-category
> storm to hit the Phillippines in four months*
> 
> Philippine typhoon 'kills dozens'
> ...


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/80F4435A-A74A-465B-98F0-F67D4E27E25C.htm

*FOUR SUPER TYPHOONS IN FOUR MONTHS!!!!* 

Lot of energy in the Pacific this year........just ask BC.

If that monster had nailed Manilla dead on - would have made Katrina look like a cakewalk.

and in the Stern Report -totalling the costs.



> Damage to transport links and crops from *Xangsane and other storms this year has already had a noticeable impact on the Philippine economy, depressing third quarter growth figures*.


Pay me now....or pay me ..BIG TIME....later.

Later...is arriving far sooner than expected.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I see.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacFury, if you don't have anything useful to contribute to the discussion, please simply refrain from posting.

We all understand that, like the proverbial ostrich, you prefer to pretend this problem doesn't exist and hope it goes away, so by all means, ignore those of us who hope to understand the issues better and discuss ways of mitigating the damage.

Maybe you can find some people who agree with you if you go hang out with creationists, flat-earthers, or holocaust-deniers. But those of us living in the reality-based community would like to have a productive discussion, so please stop interfering.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The church of the GHG? Sorry, but none of these forums is labelled "for true believers only."

Comparing me to a "holacaust denier" is offensive. Why do you feel the need to elevate my disagreement with the severity of the global warming problem with the murder of millions of Jews? I suggest you remove that part of your post, apologize, then carry on.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

This thread discusses catastrophe in general and what the affects of climate change are. The official GHG thread, while having a humourous flatulence theme running through it (relax guys, there's more to life than fear) did raise a number of issues including: Stephane Dion's climate change plan, carbon sequestration opportunity and, building on the flatulence theme, how countries (New Zealand example) face a different challenge than Canada due to their relative large livestock industry. It's got more policy stuff in it and a good dose of humour.

GHGs don't have to show up in every political thread; they don't always have to show up in the form of condemnation and fear; and it's ok to have some fun.

MF: We could continue with the sequestration discussion if you don't want to positively contribute to this fearsomely excellent thread.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> this fearsomely excellent thread.


...it is a pretty fearsomely excellent tree fort...er...thread.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It has nothing to do with "fear" and everything to do with prompting governments to action over a growing problem.

Regardless of the topic if you can't contribute in a meaningful manner to it then shut up and quit adding to the inane noise level.

Many of us don't find it humorous in the least and if MF gets dissed for it by scientists who are in a far better position than him to make a judgement he deserves it.

Time and again he has been asked to defend his position and he changes the subject or belittles the poster or the article.

You have a GHG thread you can cavort and chuckle in to your heart's content.
Do so. MF is like a sulky little boy throwing a tantrum and deserves the same amount of respect that engenders.

This IS a growing holocaust of our own making and denying it is criminal.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> It has nothing to do with "fear" and everything to do with prompting governments to action over a growing problem.
> .........................
> You have a GHG thread you can cavort and chuckle in to your heart's content.
> .........................
> This IS a growing holocaust of our own making and denying it is criminal.


Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts. "War on Terror" etc. Even for a good cause (safety, security, well-being etc.), overstatement and over-attribution creates a huge risk of cyncial rejection. It becomes very easy to question climate change in a calm year when, in the previous year, every big event was tied to it.
.........................
A problem was that you were making many threads a GHG thread. Does that count as positive contribution or hijacking? It's a fine line, so I'm not sure.
.........................
It isn't even necessarily world problem #1. That depends on measurement and whether you use the most extreme scenarios (and for which problems). It's a big one, it can be addressed and it should be addressed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> ...quit adding to the inane noise level.


Much of what you post appears to me wrongheaded, though well meaning. I will continue to comment on it whenever I choose. 

Your attempt to redefine "holocaust denier" is charming, but unsuccessful.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Comparing me to a "holacaust denier" is offensive. Why do you feel the need to elevate my disagreement with the severity of the global warming problem with the murder of millions of Jews? I suggest you remove that part of your post, apologize, then carry on.


I'm not comparing you're denial of the obvious and catastrophic consequences of global warming to the murder of millions of jews, I'm comparing it to the *denial* of this well-documented catastrophe.

I will be very happy to be proved wrong, but I strongly suspect the environmental damage our industrial production of GHGs has done will cause far greater human suffering and long term damage than the Nazis could ever have aspired to.

I did however edit my post to correct the obvious spelling error... thanks for pointing that out.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Nazis, so soon?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Battle lines......












> *Airing grievances*
> Nov 30th 2006
> From The Economist print edition
> 
> ...


http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RPGDTNV


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Nazis, so soon?


Please not that I'm not comparing you, or anyone else, to the Nazis. I am, however, comparing the potential human cost of this environmental catastrophe to the atrocities committed by the Nazis.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Is anyone familiar with water rights and sea pollution laws?
Surely those are models from which "use the air but keep it clean" legislation could be derived as they have a long ( and likely turbulent ) history.

I mean the cooperation and effort on behalf of the Great Lakes is surely a success tho could always be better.

I don't understand why the jump to similar action on GHG is such a mine field 

CBC had a good radio documentary on the tourism changes some good for areas like Britain others devastating especially for the Mediterranean.
It was nicely crafted - set 30 years out but also interspersed with current observations.
I had no idea olive trees are now nicely established in Britain and in wide spread use.

I mean Scotland as wine country!!!

As always 'is an ill wind but.......


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The oil companies must be feeling some pressure on water usage in Alberta.

For the past few days I have noticed the same commercial running on TV at all times of day. It is sponsored by "Alberta's Oil Industry".

The message?

"Alberta's oil industry has permits from government to use 7% of Alberta's fresh water supply. In fact we are using less than half of that amount."

As that old song says, "the heat is on"!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Hey, SINC, post these comments in the official GHG thread.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Hey, SINC, post these comments in the official GHG thread.


Water in a gas thread?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

SINC said:


> Water in a gas thread?


Sure, water is made from two gases.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

And I'm guessing that, since Alberta's tar sands projects are only gearing up, it won't be all that long before they hit that 7% mark. Yeah, they're feeling pressure all right... otherwise they wouldn't be shelling out coin to buy airtime to massage their PR message.

Water rights (indeed, the use of fresh water in general) are going to be much more prominent newsmakers in the coming years.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep big time and whe you have an extraction process that is 

a) incredibly damaging to the ground cover

b) takes an incredible amount of fossil fuel to undertake just to get one barrel out compared to say Saudi Arabia where it's just pumped

c) ALSO does extensive damage to water resources

can we say pariah and big time









••••

Durian continues it's damage.



> Durian, *the ninth storm to hit Vietnam this year*, damaged or destroyed 120,899 houses and sank 696 fishing vessels, the report said.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15959573/

The damage and death toll in the Philipines from Durian contines to accumulate - I can't imagine 4 in a row 

Canada has sent just under a million $ in aid :clap:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Funny how the GHG is good for you crowd don't follow the money.

The Globe posted an "exclusive" extolling the virtues of carbon dioxide.
They neglected to trace the author's affliations.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061207.wcomment1207/BNStory/National/home

I thought his view is oddly odds with the general concensus and he's not exactly got much of a record in the climate field...in fact none at all beyong geologic time scales.....so why the sudden fame.

Well a little research......draw your own conclusions 



> Partnership Arrangements
> *The proponents have strong informal links with both the major oil companies based in Calgary and Houston* and with local companies such as Corridor Resources. These linkages come from project research carried out by students, the employment of Saint Mary’s students by the oil industry, and shared research interests with individual company geologists. The oil and gas industry in Nova Scotia is evolving rapidly and the proponents are turning these informal contacts into more formal research partnerships. For example, funding for both geoscience and chemistry projects was received in the first round of awards by the Atlantic Canada Petroleum Institute. The University will establish an advisory panel of industry representatives to provide advice on the directions of oil and gas related research within the university. Individual proponents will continue to interact with industry representatives, particularly in identifying opportunities of mutual benefit for student research. Advice on commercialisation will be provided by the university’s Office of Graduate Studies and Research. Overall direction of the Pan-Atlantic Petroleum Systems Consortium will be provided by an industry advisory board.
> Team organisation
> The Dean of Science is the manager responsible for the delivery of the program and has ultimate budget responsibility. He reports to the Vice President (Academic and Research). The five project leaders are responsible for deliverables by all proponents within their particular project and will report progress on a regular basis to the Dean, who will take action if problems arise.
> ...


http://www.esd.mun.ca/ppsc/appendixh.html


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MD: You're posting this here because you just have a grudge against the thread where the article was posted? If so, let it go.

Either way, do you have links addressing the science for/against the points raised? I don't have the expertise to comment directly, so would like to read scientific discussion on the matter.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I just found it very amusing how it got jumped on and the it's such a coincidence the petroleum industry links just happen to be there.
'Nother Friends of Science" wannabe.
He makes some points but his motives in writing the piece are very suspect given his "informal major partnership".

Had those links not been there - maybe a bit more credibility attached.
He's really discussing geological time frames not 50 years.

Yes some areas will get wetter - Canada notably but you'd get few climate scientists to say the balance of good is in pumping CO2 in to the atmosphere.

It's a puff piece. The Globe should know better.

The better piece is in the BBC where it specifically asks for contrarian SCIENCE to put forth arguments that counter the current assessment of speed of change and nature of the problem.

Here's the piece



> Open door
> 
> As we come up to the release of the fourth IPCC assessment report, the first for half a decade and undoubtedly the major event of next year in climate terms, the issues raised by the loose and diverse community of sceptics will become doubly prominent.
> 
> ...


Good article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6196804.stm

BTW I read the Globe piece this am but had no time to look at the source as he's unknown in climate science circles.
Based on the background I decided not to post in here but rather see if it get promoted with no background check. It did.
Not the first time - Friends of Science stuff gets promulgated all the time.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Had those links not been there - maybe a bit more credibility attached.
> He's really discussing geological time frames not 50 years.


Geological timeframes are highly relevant, 50 years are not so much.

The real argument is human-caused climate change and the degree to which it is. Climate change itself is known to be natural. Whether here or in the other thread, and without insult, I'm sure evidence and scientific argument of all sorts can be tolerated.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sure - but something as contrarian as that article should also raise some eyebrows about possible motivation....it did mine and they proved out.

His last paragraph is reasonable that there are other pollutants that need serious curbing....but dismissing CO2 out of hand as he did AND having his oil industry links.
Sorry but it's chaff in the wind.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Sure - but something as contrarian as that article should also raise some eyebrows about possible motivation....it did mine and they proved out.
> 
> His last paragraph is reasonable that there are other pollutants that need serious curbing....but dismissing CO2 out of hand as he did AND having his oil industry links.
> Sorry but it's chaff in the wind.


Certainly. My political radar was up, but I only tried a couple googles. 

Regardless, there should be scientific response. Not democratic statements of consensus but, "This part is wrong/oversated/etc. for reasons ABC." I await eagerly because I like to learn. Even if I'll forget within a week. After all, if it's not the public policy response, who cares?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The headache with that approach is exactly what happened in the US when a law meant to assure that science was reasonably accurate was used instead to bog progress down in "well if you're not sure we can't act".

There are stages in the global warming story.

Early thesis. early voices, some conflicting evidence. 80s and earlier
Growing concensus - more detailed theory and evidence 90's 

Early new millenia and the evidence piles up and teh nature of the problem emerges.

Then the serious guys write off stopping it when the scale of the problem starts to emerge and simply say - deal with it. 2005

Now instead of being an interesting phenomena it morphs into a global threat - the nature of which and the timing of which and the extent of which is still not clear. Late 2006

Then the costs associated start to get calculated and the root causes at this point hardly matter as the pace of the change goes from this century to 30 years and no wheat belt in America and can we cap it at a level where the changes are manageable both for humans and other species.

I'd say some nations are in the last paragraph and a few "interest groups" barely out of the first stages.

Re-addressing those first stages at this point....is a waste of time....sort of like todays SSM vote.

We're not on a geological time scale we have a bottleneck of resource use, population growth and global climate change ALL hitting hard in the next couple of decades.

100 years out is almost irrelevant let alone millenia or epochs.

Once that 30 and getting shorter crunch is past then there may be some breathing space..but if the levels keep rising well above 500 ppm. It get into very scary projections.

Focusing resources on what we know will occur rather than arguing angels on pins would seem to me a wise course for the planet.

I'm grateful it's top of mind in many regions of the world and getting more so to start doing something NOW.

I'm ashamed of Canada in this regard.

Articles like the Globes are too self serving to the "major partners" to be of much interest. More noise than signal.

That said the Globe does pride itself on "obtaining counterbalancing views" - perhaps that's the best they could do......scary thought that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Your shame is neither a weapon nor an argument, though you wear it well.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

*The Weather Makers* is a terrific look at one scientist's slow awakening to the problem and growing concern.










The excerpt *The Slow Awakening* is here and worth reading in full.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5293273

It tracks his path from skeptic to dedicated researcher - he terms it a "breaking story"

This as good a summary as I've seen ( if you are interested please read the excerpt in full as it's a superb bit of writing. )



> What's more, *climate change is a breaking story*. Just over thirty years ago the experts were at loggerheads about whether Earth was warming or cooling -- unable to decide whether an icehouse or a greenhouse future was on the way. By 1975, however, the first sophisticated computer models were suggesting that a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere would lead to an increase in global temperature of around five degrees Fahrenheit. Still, concern among both scientists and the community was not significant. There was even a period of optimism, when some researchers believed that extra CO2 in the atmosphere would fertilize the world's croplands and produce a bonanza for farmers.
> 
> But by 1988 climate scientists had become sufficiently worried about CO2 to establish a panel, staffed with the world's leading experts, to report twice each decade on the issue. Their third report, issued in 2001, sounded a note of sober alarm -- yet many governments and industry leaders were slow to take an interest. Because concern about climate change is so new, and the issue is so multidisciplinary, there are few true experts in the field, and even fewer who can articulate what the problem might mean to the general public and what we should do about it.
> 
> For years I resisted the impulse to devote research time to climate change. I was busy with other things, and I wanted to wait and see, hoping an issue so big would sort itself out. Perhaps it would be centuries before we would need to think intensively about it. But by 2001, articles in scientific journals indicated that the world's alpine environments were under severe threat. As I read them, I remembered those rotting tree fern trunks in Mt. Albert Edward's forest, and I knew that I had to learn more. This meant teaching myself about greenhouse gases, the structure of our atmosphere, and how the industrialized world powers its engines of growth.


Tony Blair endorses the book on it's cover - his comment



> Climate change is perhaps the most challenging collective-action problem the world has faced. All who read _The Weather Makers_ will be left wiser and able to appreciate how fragile our climate is and how it is this generation who must act to protect it


I suspect this book had some role to play in his ordering the Stern report given the timing of each.

The book has an impressive series of endorsements ranging from Canadians David Suzuki and Nobel Prize winner John Polanyi to Jared Diamond as well as Blair amongst others.

•••••
Likely to strengthen the Stern report the fourth IPCC is in draft form and is due out 2007.



> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been established by WMO and UNEP to assess scientific, technical and socio- economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation


The most critical in my mind to act on is a special report in 2005 on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage.

http://arch.rivm.nl/env/int/ipcc/pages_media/SRCCS-final/ccsspm.pdf










IPCC home is here and the previous reports available in PDF versions.
http://www.ipcc.ch/

It's gratifying to see this level of cooperation on the planet and a real shame that Canada is viewed as a pariah in this regard when we should be at the forefront.

Hopefully that will change shortly.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Chatting tonight with an Air Canada pilot who flies to Australia and and had connections there.
He says the situation is dire and people definitely waking up as many percieve climate change as hitting them hard .
He said the fires are unreal.
He's also engaged in the ski industry here in Ontario .....you can imagine his comments about that.












> *Parched in Australia: Drought changes views on warming*
> 
> By Tim Johnston / International Herald Tribune
> Published: November 7, 2006
> ...


http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/07/news/drought.php

Australia has some other challenges to face due to its unique geography



> Global Warming Threatens Biodiversity In Australia's Wet Tropics
> Global climate change will pose serious challenges for wildlife populations around the world in the coming decades. The findings of Dr. Stephen Williams (Centre for Tropical Biodiversity & Climate Change, James Cook University) suggest that endemic wildlife populations in Australia's Wet Tropics World Heritage Area will be particularly vulnerable to the local warming trend


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060725090700.htm

Canada, like Russia stands to see some benefit but Australia looks to be, is being hit very hard.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think Stern wants to be paid now. With perhaps another payment later.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The very pragmatic Dutch have an interesting image of the problem on their safe coast site. They CLEARLY have an interest in this.










There are a ton of excellent links from that site identifying coastal issues around the world.

http://www.safecoast.org/links/



> Keeping our feet dry in the North Sea region
> 
> The recent Asian tsunami and flooding of New Orleans
> due to Hurricane Katrina are two prominent examples
> ...


If ever there was an issue that could engender real cooperation around the world this is it.
Where is Canada?? 51st of 56.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Where is Canada?? 51st of 56.


Yeah, you're right. The Liberal governments sure left us in a mess with that standing, didn't they?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If a hostile government wishes to exact a toll on western demcoracies, they will continue to produce these GHGs and disrupt our economies.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Yeah, you're right. The Liberal governments sure left us in a mess with that standing, didn't they?


and harper working hard to get it to 56


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If we wait a little longer, someone might fall down the list and give us a little boost.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and harper working hard to get it to 56


Well, you DO have to give him credit for trying, something that was foreign to past Liberal governments.

How you GHG types can blame the Conservatives for our standing while doing SOMETHING, unlike the Liberals who left the mess by doing NOTHING, is beyond logic.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC, of course it is beyond logic. Anyone espousing less than small "l" liberal beliefs is held to a higher standard. The Conservatives may be doing more but the Liberals did nothing with much greater feeling.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ah, the feeling. So that's it eh?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> \How you GHG types can blame the Conservatives for our standing while doing SOMETHING, unlike the Liberals who left the mess by doing NOTHING, is beyond logic.


I don't blame the Conservatives for our current position, except in the broader political terms of creating a baseless opposing force against spineless Liberals. That blame applies to a wide swath, from industries to faery dreams from activists of how quick and easy things could be done. All those factors, with the Liberals at the helm of a majority government reaping the voting benefit of being "pro-Kyoto", got us to where we are. Primary blame: the Liberals. 

I do blame the Conservatives for doing next-to-nothing now in a way that beats the Liberal next-to-nothing but, to their credit, will accomplish next-to-nothing for less money.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep we could have been leaders but the Liberals frittered it away.
That said the level of concern and the implications of doing little was no where near the level of concern it is now.

All Harper has to do is get moving on a concensus, the other parties and industry are willing.
The Cons didn't get us here, they ARE responsible for the current world view of Canada. Mulroney was actually on a better track bt fixing the fiscal house was Martin's goal while keeping ohter issues on the back burner...environment being one of them.

There is a well balanced look in the Star today that outlines the rising concern and raises the question whether Canadians are willing to confront the uncertain costs of dealing with the issue. Good history of green in Canada as well also pointing out what is so different in this "wave".



> Dec. 9, 2006. 01:00 AM
> PETER GORRIE
> ENVIRONMENT REPORTER
> 
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

Worth the read and reasonable balance given the Star's Liberal bent.



> *"What really drives people's concerns about the environment is not the incidents themselves but the sense that governments and industry aren't doing anything about them," McAllister says. "As they perceive (those in power) are not acting, they got pissed off."*
> Up to the mid-'80s, poll respondents seemed satisfied. After a few years of bad news, though, that began to change: Views of politicians and business leaders got negative. Only then did environment shoot to first place when people were asked their major concern.
> Governments and industry responded with various measures, including effective treaties on ozone and acid rain, and the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Companies produced a flood of green products. Although often of dubious value, they added to the sense change was afoot.
> As an issue, the environment became a smooth, untroubled sea.
> ...


I am seriously fed up, as it appears others are, with the "do nothing" pols at so many levels of gov and I'm also fed but with the polticking for it's own sake and not in support of good governance.

Maybe now without lawyers at the helms something could be accomplished.
The clean gov act just passed is a start.

More please.

What an ugly comparison- our approach to that of the Dutch. 

as for Harper "doing something" ....he's not - the whole plan was a huge joke and embarrassment and a pander to the do nothing head in sand crowd.
I'll take Shell's CEO comments as a better assessment and inlike f those -Harper is doing NOTHING.



> DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — The chief executive for Shell berated Washington on Monday for spurning the United Nation’s Kyoto agreement on global warming, saying U.S. backing for a global regulatory framework would create incentives for oil companies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
> 
> “For us as a company, the debate about CO2 is over. We’ve entered a debate about what we can do about it,” Royal Dutch Shell PLC chief Jeroen Van Der Veer told a gathering of hundreds of political and business leaders from the Middle East and elsewhere.
> 
> ...


http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2006/12/04/houston-chronicle-shell-ceo-berates-us-over-kyoto-pact

People are willing, industry is willing......the opposition is willing......it's waiting on Harper et al and as the Star article mentions Ambrose may be the sacrificial goat.

Now here is one situation I'd love to see Gov bring in an expert not a politician, and approved by all parties, to head the portfolio.

THEN I'd think we might have a working, responsive and responsible government again.
And one with some vision.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The Dutch have a tiny population on a tiny chunk of land. Also they're used to being taxed to the gills. Much easier for them to do something. 

But I do agree that the Conservatives could greatly improve their political fortunes by taking a stab at something that both addresses real air issues AND GHG fears at the same time. Even announcing some support for a nuclear energy program and saying it targets GHGs, for example.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> But I do agree that the Conservatives could greatly improve their political fortunes by taking a stab at something that both addresses real air issues AND GHG fears at the same time. Even announcing some support for a nuclear energy program and saying it targets GHGs, for example.


With the Clean Air Act currently undergoing input from all parties and being rewritten, I am hopeful it will emerge as a real step in the right direction. That would be progress.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I suppose if you consider Netherlands with 1/2 Canada's population tiny your comment might have some merit 

Because we are not at as great a risk as they are we should do nothing??

What a crock. They have vision and leadership and accept the reality and are not throwing up dust and noise in the way of actively seeking practical solutions.
Their dealing with the North Sea has given them expertise they have carried around the world to their enduring economic benefit.

Every first world country has abilities and responsbilities in this as we collectively are most reponsible for it occurring.
Blair of all leaders has fully engaged that for his nation and so has his opposition.

Our gov???.........I'm still waiting.

•••

Yes Sinc that would be progress and not just in the environment.
I've said all along having the Cons as gov is the only way to have them engaged instead of sulking in the backlot.

It COULD be good for Canada but all the parties have to get off politicking and start governing collectively as we elected them to do.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Flowering trees in December??.....in Geneva!!??



> Europe basks in balmy temperatures
> *Trees are in blossom, flowers blooming as winter, so far, bypasses continent*
> Dec. 9, 2006. 01:00 AM
> ERICA BULMAN
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...geid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1165619410461

••••••












> Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapse Tied to Global Warming
> 
> LONDON, England, October 16, 2006 (ENS) - Scientists on Monday reported the first direct evidence linking the 2002 collapse of an Antarctic ice shelf to global warming. The researchers found that stronger westerly winds in the northern Antarctic Peninsula, fueled primarily by human-induced climate change, were responsible for the dramatic summer warming that led to the retreat and collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf.
> 
> ...


http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2006/2006-10-16-03.asp


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm cold.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

*New study suggests microscopic link between humans and global warming...*

In a recent issue of Environmental Geology, two scientists at the University of Southern California challenge the notion that humans are the prime mover in climate changes.

Among other more subtle variations, the scientists state that:
* "a one percent increase in current solar radiation reaching the Earth’s body translates directly into approximately 0.86 K increase in the Earth’s global temperature.” 
* the earth’s orbit about the sun changes over long periods of time resulting in up to a 7.5 K (1 K = 1°C = 1.8°F) modulation of the earth’s temperature. 

After quantifying the effect of the various processes that alter global temperature they conclude “The current global warming is most likely a combined effect of increased solar and tectonic activities and cannot be attributed to the increased anthropogenic impact on the atmosphere. Humans may be responsible for less than 0.01°C (of approximately 0.56°C (1°F) total average atmospheric heating during the last century)”....Any attempts to mitigate undesirable climatic changes using restrictive regulations are condemned to failure, because the global natural forces are at least 4–5 orders of magnitude greater than available human controls..the Kyoto Protocol is a good example of how to achieve the minimum results with the maximum efforts (and sacrifices). Impact of available human controls will be negligible in comparison with the global forces of nature. Thus, the attempts to alter the occurring global climatic changes (and drastic measures prescribed by the Kyoto Protocol) have to be abandoned as meaningless and harmful.”

The paper was peer-reviewed of course.

Reference:

Khilyuk, L.F., and G. V. Chilingar. 2006. On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved? Environmental Geology, 50, 899–910.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Made me laugh










••••

This was amusing too......












> Geology and Geochemistry of Oil and Gas, Volume 52 (Developments in Petroleum Science) (Hardcover)
> by *G.V. Chilingar*, L. Buryakovsky, N.A. Eremenko, M.V. Gorfunkel


Not an oil industry hack AGAIN....... 

The little weasels seem to pop up everywhere. Strange that- I guess Exxon money is spread far and wide - even into the schools.



> ll, maybe the NSTA just being extra cautious. But there was one more curious argument in the e-mail: Accepting the DVDs, they wrote, would place "unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters." One of those supporters, it turns out, is the Exxon Mobil Corp.
> 
> *That's the same Exxon Mobil that for more than a decade has done everything possible to muddle public understanding of global warming and stifle any serious effort to solve it.* It has run ads in leading newspapers (including this one) questioning the role of manmade emissions in global warming, and financed the work of a small band of scientific skeptics who have tried to challenge the consensus that heat-trapping pollution is drastically altering our atmosphere. The company spends millions to support groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute that aggressively pressure lawmakers to oppose emission limits.
> 
> ...


Great fellow travellers you have there MF.
Real good science that.

Maybe vet your sources a bit better - that little iceberg of denial is shrinking rather rapidly.

Solar gain???.......there is none in the last 30 years.



> Objection:
> The sun is the source of all the warmth on earth. Any increase in temperature is most likely due to changes in solar radiation.
> 
> Well, it's not an unreasonable first guess, but why leave it there, why not check and see what the sun is doing?
> ...


Here's the science.

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Owned!:lmao: :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ahhh so the oil and gas industry payed off the peer review committee. Sweet. 

Conspiracy theorist hard at work.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Heaven forbid that geologists should write a textbook on geology. Now it's up to you MacDoc, to prove that these scientists were paid by the oil and gas industry to falsify research instead of just linking to some document about Exxon that has nothing to do with this study.

Also, your report on solar radiation is far from the final word on the matter. 

http://www.fathersforlife.org/REA/warming4.htm


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Wow these things are big...just watching a Discovery special on them.



> anuary 19, 2006—Pitting two hands against thousands of stinging tentacles, a diver attaches a tracking device to a giant Nomura's jellyfish off the coast of Japan on October 4, 2005.
> 
> Since last summer, Japanese waters have been inundated with the massive sea creatures, which can grow 6.5 feet (2 meters) wide and weigh up to 450 pounds (220 kilograms).
> 
> ...


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0119_060119_jellyfish.html

These kind of population anomalies are one of the interesting aspect of climate change covered off in The Weather Makers. One family in England tracked the first birds and frog croaks on their estate since 1736 ! 

This site has a wide ranging collection of photos documenting the changes in every part of the planet collected over 25 years..

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/index.html



> Fishermen on the northern tip of Honshu, Japan’s main island, were forced to suspend work at the height of the lucrative salmon season.
> 
> *In Akita prefecture some communities saw their incomes fall by 80 per cent.* The gizzard shad fishers of South Korea have also been plagued by the Nomura’s.[/quote[
> 
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Big jellyfish.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/usc-rebuttal.html

The rebuttal to the paper. Strongly worded too, but it also actually discusses the claims.  
....................
It is astonishing that the paper of Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006) (as well as Khilyuk and Chilingar 2004, for that matter) could pass the review process of a seemingly serious journal such as Environmental Geology. Such failures of this process, which is supposed to guarantee the quality of published literature, are likely to damage the reputation of this journal.
....................


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/usc-rebuttal.html
> 
> The rebuttal to the paper. Strongly worded too, but it also actually discusses the claims.
> ....................
> ...


This is a prime example why I do not trust science without question. What we have here is a difference of scientific opinion or interpretation. If two sets of so-called scientists can have opposing views with one calling the other wrong, they are no better than Macfury and I not believing them unquestioned either. The science is flawed, it would seem.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> This is a prime example why I do not trust science without question. What we have here is a difference of scientific opinion or interpretation. If two sets of so-called scientists can have opposing views with one calling the other wrong, they are no better than Macfury and I not believing them unquestioned either. The science is flawed, it would seem.


Only in Khilyuk and Chilingar's papers. It would seem foolish to disbelieve all papers just because these two are dishonest and in the pay of Exxon.



> The paper of Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006) contains several more unconventional theories, e.g., the twice repeated hypothesis that in 0.6 Gyr “endogenic oxygen” will degas from the Earth’s core, increase the atmospheric pressure to 40 atm and the global temperature to over 80°C, or the hypothesis that the main internal heat source of the Earth is not radioactivity but “gravitational matter differentiation”. All these hypotheses are not well substantiated either by original arguments or by credible references. One of the weaknesses of the paper is that much of the cited literature is in Russian, thus not easily accessible, or refers to websites, some of them as dubious as http://www.junkscience.com. If the authors think that theories of anthropogenic global warming are junk science, they should themselves adhere to higher scientific standards, e.g., by citing the relevant literature in the fields they cover, but they fail to do so. Some of their major conclusions are simply unsupported allegations, e.g., when they claim that “the major causes of currently observed global warming are: rising solar irradiation and increasing tectonic activity”.


Thanks for the link Beej.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

martman said:


> Only in Khilyuk and Chilingar's papers. It would seem foolish to disbelieve all papers just because these two are dishonest and in the pay of Exxon.


Are they in the pay of Exxon?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Are they in the pay of Exxon?





> It's bad enough when a company tries to sell junk science to a bunch of grown-ups. But, like a tobacco company using cartoons to peddle cigarettes, Exxon Mobil is going after our kids, too.
> 
> And it has been doing so for longer than you may think. NSTA says it has received $6 million from the company since 1996


Funded by, in the pay of. These are mealy semantics.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MArtman: The NSTA is the Nationals Science Teachers Association. It is not a research organization.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

My bad. I was led to believe they were members.
That said the rebuttal to your paper was published by the same journal, basically discrediting the original.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Is there something wrong with being a member of the NSTA?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Damage control



> *Will Harper and Layton make a green deal?*
> Dec. 11, 2006. 01:00 AM
> CHANTAL HÉBERT
> 
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907622983

One wonders if Stern anticipated political "costs" 

NDP and Cons negotiating in the same room on the environment.....hell freezing over comes to mind.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> NDP and Cons negotiating in the same room on the environment.....hell freezing over comes to mind.


Perhaps it is part of the new Canadian order to keep Liberals at bay?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

If so, I can't imagine it working for very long. Ideologically speaking, it's a Frankenstein pairing.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Amazing what odd animals evolutionary pressures throws up 

a CoNdp.....short lived reptile circa 2006.  - field marks - extreme Blue on head bright orange tail


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yeah, but if it gets us an improved Clean Air Act, don't step on it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I agree - nothing I'd like to see more than if they get together the way they did on the Accountability Act and put a world class environment package together.....and soon.

Then every Province and the major cities adopt Portlands Green plan as a model.

Canada and Alberta in particular is making a ton of money off our very polluting resource, the least we could do is be a model citizen in curbing the problems.

Hard for us to criticize, and sue Ohio when we're pumping out the junk on a massive scale....and doing nada for about it.

It would be a terrific holiday present for the nation if they crafted a St. Lawrence Seaway level visionary environment package.

A Charter of sustainability for the planet.

We did it once for Human Rights.......


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Yeah, but if it gets us an improved Clean Air Act, don't step on it.



at this point i trust jack layton less than stephen harper

yeah, u read correctly

layton has proven to be nothing more than a political opportunistic whore (and i use that word advisedly) 

his NDP held the balance of power in the last gov't and now the only thing he holds is a nice house in ottawa that he and his, now MP, wife share
2 salaries courtesy of the good people of Canada

layton's support of the election was a travesty of NDP ideals
i surprised old ed broadbent didn't have a coronary

time for NDP to have a leadership review
jack's going bye bye


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Does it really matter at this point......events have transpired to put them both in a corner and force the issue or bothof them face a severe drubbing in the minds of Canadians and already are at the polls.

If it takes a cattle prod to get em talking so be it.
They'll either do it NOW or be reduced to rump parties come next election.
Dire conditions mke strange bedfellows....might be the best thing to happen on the Hill for a while.

Law of unintended consequences.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Russia gets it's ice free ports...BIG TIME...2040 maybe.....all year around, 



> y Jonathan Amos
> Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco
> 
> A new model forecasts largely ice-free summers by 2040
> ...


It has been said both Canada and Russia will be winners in the warming- this is one.....but a what cost to the eco systems


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

and in the Hell freezes over category........Big Coal calls for GHG action 



> THE ENERGY CHALLENGE
> The Cost of an Overheated Planet
> 
> By STEVE LOHR
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/business/worldbusiness/12warm.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

Good read including the links. :clap:

Gee Martha lookee there ...those icicles on Satan's castle.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

In the "why am I not surprised" category.



> US scientists reject interference
> By Jonathan Amos
> Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco
> 
> ...


Good for the US science community to stand up and be counted against this political malfeasance. :clap:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6178213.stm


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Hmmm, every post on this page by one person. Coincidence or no one believes the propaganda?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Hmmm, every post on this page by one person. Coincidence or no one believes the propaganda?


when i see macdoc doing the sunday news talk show circuit, i might start believing your conspiracy theory

i would watch just to see macdoc in a suit and tie...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sinc: You don't have to worry about MacDoc posting to himself...just worry when he starts responding to his own posts.


Oh....wait...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/business/14scene.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
..........................
As Mr. Nordhaus says, “While the findings of such mainstream economic assessments may not satisfy the most ardent environmentalists, if followed they would go far beyond current global emissions reductions and would be a good first step on a journey of many miles.”
..........................
Exploring the implications of alternative assumptions is likely to lead to better policy than making a single blanket recommendation. At least at this stage of our understanding, exploration beats exhortation.
..........................


There are some valid problems with the Stern methodology and, as I pointed out at the time, the 20% isn't really 20% of the economy.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Many miles??....300 years he suggests.....foolish man.

The miles to the bottleneck are exceedingly short....and as more is understood, the time frame shortens.
But there are always those who find it amusing to naysay the obvious.

This thread is a personal blog about items I come across relating to the Stern report.
Read, don't read it, I could give a damn. If you want to act like a 6 year old be my guest. It's quite illustrative of the "nature" of the problem

Flat out ignorance.

Fortunately there are enough Canadians and others worldwide willing to undertake the changes to soften the inevitable changes already in progress and those to come.

The changes already are far more costly than we yet know.

Australia is right in the thick or perhaps the "dry of it".



> Australia's 'Big Dry' and the Politics of Global Warming
> Luke Hunt | Bio | 29 Nov 2006
> World Politics Watch Exclusive
> HONG KONG -- Mum rang the other day. It was only unusual because we had already spoken between Melbourne and Hong Kong twice that week, for her 70th birthday, and this conversation was stilted, though she assured me everything was fine.
> ...


Australia is seriously and deeply into and ongoing downward trend of rain over the past 30 years and it's getting worse.

$8 billion in losses in agriculture alone this year...and summer has just begun.

and in Moscow...



> wilderment as Russia's winter shrivels in face of global warming
> by Sebastian Smith Thu Dec 14, 3:33 AM ET
> MOSCOW (AFP) - There is not quite the drama of a Florida hurricane, or the poignancy of stranded polar bears, but Moscow babushka Larisa Bilik is struggling to sell her wool socks -- and global warming, experts say, is also to blame.
> 
> ...


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061214/sc_afp/russiaweather_061214061838

....keep on fiddling.....it IS burning.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Many miles??....300 years he suggests.....foolish man.


.........................
*As these examples illustrate*, the choice of an appropriate policy toward global warming depends heavily on how one weighs the costs and benefits it imposes on different generations. The Stern Review chose a particular way to do this, but many other choices could have been examined.

Exploring the implications of alternative assumptions is likely to lead to better policy than making a single blanket recommendation. At least at this stage of our understanding, *exploration beats exhortation*.
.........................


300 years wasn't suggested, it was used to show the problem with how Stern costs were calculated.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

> How do damages, which average around 5 percent of output over the
> next two centuries turn into a 14.4 percent reduction in consumption now and
> forever? The answer lies in the way that near-zero discounting magnifies
> distant impacts. With near-zero discounting, the low damages in the next two
> ...


http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/SternReviewD2.pdf


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> But if the Review's figure for delta is put to work on DICE, the first-period social price of carbon becomes about $150 per ton. This is about half the figure offered by the Review, but it's enough to suggest that the drivers behind the Review's findings are the very low values of the two ethical parameters, delta and eta.
> ...........................
> To assume that eta equals 1 is to say that the distribution of well-being among people doesn't matter much, that we should spend huge amounts for later generations even if, adjusting for risk, they were expected to be much better off than us.
> ............................
> ...


http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/faculty/dasgupta/STERN.pdf


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Take the binoculars off Beej....two centuries....I suppose it's an improvement over three.

•••



> Global Warming Trend Continues in 2006, Climate Agencies Say
> E-Mail
> Print
> Reprints
> ...


The NOW part of pay me now getting serious.........not much later??......I suggest Stern under estimates.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Take the binoculars off Beej....two centuries....I suppose it's an improvement over three.


Er, no MD, you're missing the point or just intentionally misinterpreting. It isn't about the centuries, it is how the Stern estimates are largely a result of two peculiar parameter choices combined -- not new insights -- that add orders of magnitudes of "costs". This is why such modeling needs a comparison cost scenario, not just a BAU.

However, with your weak little "centuries" comments, "If you want to act like a 6 year old be my guest. It's quite illustrative of the "nature" of the problem" but that would just be, "Flat out ignorance." 

And, just for kicks, the blue-ball of concentrated anger (TM Max?):  

To reiterate:
"To be critical of the Review isn't to understate the harm humanity is inflicting on itself by degrading the natural environment - not only in regard to the stock of carbon in the atmosphere, but also in regard to so many other environmental matters besides. But the cause isn't served when parameter values are so chosen that they yield desired answers."

Be careful of falling off high-horses when crusading.

Apply the same modeling technique to other global challenges and risks and we could have "Pay me now" threads on topics of great Stern-based importance. MD: it isn't about dismissing and/or attacking everything that doesn't go your way and championing everything that does. That's just sports-fan fervour.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> That's just sports-fan fervour.


So is listing every weather event one chooses and declaring it's all part of human-initiated global warming. This is a childish five-alarm travesty of investigative reasoning...a discredit to scientists who have something reasonable to say.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I wouldn't dare to question or critique the Stern Review if it was written on stone tablets. That would bring hellfire upon me. Cue hellfire warnings:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Stern has come under a lot of fire for combining the most outrageous scenaria in order to achieve the most hysterical outcome possible. He's the economist of climates scientists, and yet didn't seem to do a particularly good job with the economics.

Note this critique:



> "I think they're being quite naughty,'' [said Dr Brian O'Brien, a strategic and environmental consultant, who was the foundation Director and Chairman of the WA Environmental Protection Authority}. "All this apocalyptic talk when the situation is not so cataclysmic that they couldn't have waited till 2007 for the best available transparent data rather than rely on the coupling together of a five-year-old, out-of-date IPCC report, amended with references to a difficult-to-obtain German publication Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, edited by H.J.Schellnhuber (Cambridge University Press), which is not only not readily available but was not subjected to the usual process of peer review.''
> 
> Professor O'Brien referred to remarks made by Robert White, the President of the US National Academy of Engineering to the annual general meeting of the US Academy of Science, in Washington, in April, 1989, where he said: "Whether we in the scientific community like it or not, we have awakened the political beast; we are confronted with an inverted pyramid of knowledge. "A huge and growing mass of proposals for policy action is balanced upon a handful of real facts.''


http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,,20699131-5001031,00.html


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> I wouldn't dare to question or critique the Stern Review if it was written on stone tablets. That would bring hellfire upon me. Cue hellfire warnings:


You're all gonna fry for this!!

Perhaps the LGM will come to punish us for turning a critical eye to this most sincere of blogs.

What I find interesting is the way in which the scenaria change to suit the temperament of the proponents. If people don't listen or act quickly enough to suit the hotheads, then we hear about "bottlenecks," "runaway greenhouse effects" and "the point of no return." Basically, we have to implement the full program NOW--no time to think about it, because the thinking's been done for you already my friends.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yeah, being bullied and condescended to somehow doesn't quite work as a prime motivator, does it?

I prefer to be buried under mountains of evidence... and addressed as if I'm not a complete ninny. But hey, that's just me.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)




----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

I would also prefer not to be emoticated quite so much. I just find it so... _distressing_.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What I like about the "blue ball of anger" is that it looks down as if anticipating the offender will reassert him/herself. A pre-dismissal...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Ahhh well... to every individual their eccentricities. Besides, being overly emoticated can be very amusing at times. Usually it means someone has run out of arguments, or patience, or both. I have much the same reaction when people resort to caps-lock rants or projectile-spew lots of redundant redundant punctuation.

But je digress...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Wait til next year when it really gets going in the Pacific.



> *B.C. hammered by third wind storm in a week*
> 
> Canadian Press and Associated Press
> 
> ...


*Somthing is clearly very wrong with this planet.* ( sic)....indeed.

Iin 1976 the central Pacific norm was 19 degrees.......it's now approaching 30.

Physics rule.......energy's gotta go somewhere....

I guess it's going to be a good year for the west coast building trades.
"tis an ill wind n all.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Before Global Warming scenarios, we referred to these as "storms."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Perhaps a reminder is needed on 

a) how close the world came to a catastrophe with ozone depletion.

b) how bitterly Dupont et al fought it ( and lost )

c) how successful the protocol has been tho the problem is not yet gone....it's manageable.

The status now



> Atmospheric Ozone Recovering In Mid-latitudes, Report Shows
> Concentrations of atmospheric ozone -- which protects Earth from the sun’s ultraviolet radiation -- are showing signs of recovery in the most important regions of the stratosphere above the mid-latitudes in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres, a new study shows.
> 
> Concentrations of atmospheric ozone -- which protects Earth from the sun's ultraviolet radiation -- are showing signs of recovery in the most important regions of the stratosphere above the mid-latitudes in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres, a new study shows. (Image courtesy of NASA)
> ...


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060830215811.htm

If you don't know how close that came to incredible consequences....might be worth reading a bit.
It was and perhaps still is a very near thing.



> Field notes from underground
> Remember that one time when we almost destroyed that atmosphere but then we didn’t?
> B20201 / Wed, 29 Nov 2006 14:54:45 / Environment
> We’re very lucky. Very stupid and very lucky. We have already inadvertently avoided destroying the protective ozone layer of our planet’s atmosphere. We did not dodge catastrophe with sound reasoning, intelligent, cognizant action, or prudent scientific application of technology. We did it by dumb ****ing luck.
> ...


http://livingston.gnn.tv/blogs/2020..._destroyed_that_atmosphere_but_then_we_didn_t

Each time we fail to learn from the past.....it gets more expensive.
Big time this time.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I find it funny looking at cherry pickers accuse MacDoc of cherry picking.
Have you no shame or sense of hypocrisy? Those who deny GHGs cherry pick science reviews at least as much as MacDoc cherry picks the weather if not more.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So now you're accusing MacDoc of cherry-picking the weather, eh?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Six largest carmakers fight global warming suit
> Updated Sat. Dec. 16 2006 9:35 PM ET
> 
> Associated Press
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061216/car_climate_061216/20061216?hub=SciTech

•••

anything sound familiar here



> The response to the ozone crisis by DuPont, the inventor of CFCs and the largest producer of ozone depleting chemicals in the world is a prime example of the 3D corporate strategy.
> 
> DENY: On June 30, 1975 a Du Pont advertisement in the New York Times read: "Should reputable evidence show that some fluorocarbons cause a health hazard through depletion of the ozone layer, we are prepared to stop production of the offending compounds." However, the July 16, 1975 issue of the trade magazine Chemical Weekly quoted the Chair of the Board of DuPont saying that ozone depletion theory is "a science fiction tale...a load of rubbish...utter nonsense."
> 
> ...


http://archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/greenfreeze/moral97/6dupont.html


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> anything sound familiar here


Yes. This sounds exactly like the same post you made on this topic a day ago.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Stern is being further discredited for "cherry-picking" his information and monkeying with economic projections. In fact, a good case can be made that we SHOULD pay later because the entire world will be better equipped, economically, to do so. On the other hand, if we foolishly implement the Stern report recommendations today, we will cripple the economies of developing nations for centuries.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> So now you're accusing MacDoc of cherry-picking the weather, eh?


Um no. I'm accusing you of being a hypocrite by accusing MacDoc of cherry picking when that is precisely what you are doing. I never accused MacDoc of cherry picking.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Stern is being further discredited for "cherry-picking" his information and monkeying with economic projections. In fact, a good case can be made that we SHOULD pay later because the entire world will be better equipped, economically, to do so. On the other hand, if we foolishly implement the Stern report recommendations today, we will cripple the economies of developing nations for centuries.


Link please! These are pretty bold accusations to come with with out links.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

As i recall it....



martman said:


> Those who deny GHGs cherry pick science reviews at least *as much as MacDoc cherry picks the weather* if not more.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> As i recall it....


"at least as much if not more"
Do you only read in half sentences?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A case ....from MF.....you must be joking.

•••

Insurance companies are already evaluating how much to charge major GHG emitters for future damage claims.

Jurisdictions such as states and even small nations ( in the Pacific ) are bringing suit against those organizations, both corporate and gov that fail to act on a known threat that affects them directly.



> The insurance industry says they are being hit first and hardest by global climate change. As climate change continues to disrupt the environment, natural disasters are on the rise. The UN Environment Program reports that natural disasters are doubling every decade and over the last 15 years, the damage adds up to more than $1 trillion. The insurance industry is bearing the brunt ? paying out more than they ever have in history ? and is now looking for ways to lessen the burden. Some European companies are even trying to encourage their clients to change their ways and be more environmentally conscious to help mitigate the effects of climate change.
> 
> Forest fires raged across the west this summer, torching hundreds of thousands of acres of rangeland. Last summer, Europe was ravaged by floods that caused $5 billion in damages. And in just the past month, Hurricane Isabel swept through North Carolina, leaving homes and businesses destroyed. If it weren? for insurance, many homeowners and entrepreneurs would be bankrupt.
> 
> But who will insure the insurance industry? Insurance experts like Gerry Lemcke at Swiss Re say that natural disasters are on the rise due to global warming, and that catastrophic events could bankrupt the industry in the coming years. Scientists from the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) estimate that weather-related claims may soon top $150 billion a year, the vast majority of which they attribute to global climate change. If the industry is to survive, they say, change needs to be made.


http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/insurance_insecurit.html

The volume of legal actions will simply grow and will insurance costs against judgement and the cost of fighting and the cost of insurance will soon outweigh the foot dragging.

The success of the ozone accord in at least reducing the threat is a model and the narrowly averted major problem should. have been a wake up call.



> Already the pain of weather-related insurance risks is being felt by owners of highly vulnerable properties such as offshore oil platforms, for which some rates have risen 400% in one year. That may be an omen for many businesses. Three years ago John Dutton, dean emeritus of Penn State's College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, estimated that $2.7 trillion of the $10-trillion-a-year U.S. economy is susceptible to weather-related loss of revenue, implying that an enormous number of companies have off-balance-sheet risks related to weather--even without the cataclysms a flickering climate might bring.
> 
> Corporate leaders could soon feel the heat too. In 2004, Swiss Reinsurance, a $29 billion financial giant, sent a questionnaire to companies that had purchased its directors-and-officers coverage, inquiring about their corporate strategies for dealing with climate change regulations. D&O insurance, as it is called, insulates executives and board members from the costs of lawsuits resulting from their companies' actions; Swiss Re is a major player in D&O reinsurance.
> 
> What Swiss Re is after, says Christopher Walker, who heads its Greenhouse Gas Risk Solutions unit, is reassurance that customers will not make themselves vulnerable to global-warming-related lawsuits. He cites as an example Exxon Mobil: The oil giant, which accounts for roughly 1% of global carbon emissions, has lobbied aggressively against efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. If Swiss Re judges that a company is exposing itself to lawsuits, says Walker, "we might then go to them and say, 'Since you don't think climate change is a problem, and you're betting your stockholders' assets on that, we're sure you won't mind if we exclude climate-related lawsuits and penalties from your D&O insurance.' " Swiss Re's customers may be put to the test soon in California, where Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is pushing to restrict carbon emissions, says Walker. *A customer that ignores the likelihood of such laws and, for instance, builds a coal-fired power plant that soon proves a terrible bet could face shareholder suits that Swiss Re might not want to insure against.*


http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/17/news/economy/climate_fortune/

It's costing already, get on with it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Of course the Insurance companies love this sort of thing. If they can increase premiums on any pretext they will. This one is a prime example.

Your reasoning seems to be that if insurance companies are willing to jack up their rates that your claims abouit GHG must be true. 

I have known insurance companies to jack up rates merely because they want more of their clients' money.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

martman said:


> "at least as much if not more"
> Do you only read in half sentences?


No, in fact, unless your interface is broken, I quoted the entire sentence in which you accused MacDoc of cherry picking.

That you also accuse others of cherry picking is not the point we were discussing.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> No, in fact, unless your interface is broken, I quoted the entire sentence in which you accused MacDoc of cherry picking.
> 
> That you also accuse others of cherry picking is not the point we were discussing.


You can purposely twist what I say all you want. You know as well as I do the point I am making. This is a completely dishonest way of arguing. As usual you are trying to promote misunderstanding. Why am I not surprised?
tptptptp


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

No, I understand. You said that when MacDoc cherry picks it is not so severe as when other people cherry pick.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

bout right



> THE YEAR 2006 is on track for becoming the hottest - and one of the wettest - ever recorded in Scotland, according to new data from the Met Office.
> 
> This autumn has been the warmest ever recorded in Scotland, and July was the warmest month since records began in 1914. November was also the wettest on record, with 244mm (10 inches) of rain falling - weather that has persisted well into December.
> 
> ...


http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1078515.0.0.php


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> No, I understand. You said that when MacDoc cherry picks it is not so severe as when other people cherry pick.


As I said you are dishonest.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

martman said:


> As I said you are dishonest.


Did you see Doc's signature image of a pair of cherries before you posted that Martman? :lmao: I don't think he needs your help here.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

*exactly right*

This seems more accurate.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> This seems more accurate.


especially madonna


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> In fact, Canadians are seeing fewer white Christmases than they used to in the 1970s.
> 
> "When parents today were kids, they didn't have to dream as much about a white Christmas because it was almost guaranteed," Phillips told CTV's Canada AM.
> 
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061218/white_christmas_061218/20061218/

Why that's a whole bowl picked


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Those cherries will be growing in Tuktoyaktuk next year! Mmmmmm!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Off with her head........a stern reminder of failure












> *PM set to axe Ambrose, sources say*
> 
> SUE BAILEY
> Canadian Press
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061219.wcabine1219/BNStory/National/home

Why this is as bad as Carroll....with Mad Hatter Harper as host










one wonders what rabbit hole they'll fall into next?.....perhaps they've imbibed the "makes you smaller" pill.....t'would appear so at the polls.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The Conservatives will win the next election.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> The Conservatives will win the next election.


Yep. Too many promises kept not to.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Hey, look! The Environment portfolio is now 'pivotal'! Cool. A few years ago the Environment portfolio was where you stuck your inexperienced ministers... somewhere they could make mistakes and learn without drawing too much media criticism.

Seems Harper was a little behind the times. We'll see if his new appointee is able to spin better than Rona.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Mother Nature prepares to batter B.C. coast again
> Updated Wed. Dec. 20 2006 11:54 AM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


FOUR Cherries in a row.....no winners in BC


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> FOUR Cherries in a row.....no winners in BC


That is a jackpot!
Congrats MacDoc!
:lmao:


Wait! Is that a cherry tree?!!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Warm weather to warp jobs data*
> ROMA LUCIW
> 
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061222.weatherjobs1222/BNStory/Business/home

'Tis an ill wind theory at its best.







just a one cherry twist.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Unseasonably cold weather in Arizona:

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=80955

But that's right, BOTH cold AND warm weather prove GHG global warming. In fact ALL weather is proof of GHG-induced global warming. Nice travelogue though Doc..helps you to fill your idle hours I suppose.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Global Warming Ate My Insurance Policy*
> Allstate plans to stop offering property insurance in nearly a dozen counties along the Chesapeake Bay starting in February.
> 
> The reason: the increased risk of hurricane damage due to rising ocean temperatures, possibly caused by global warming.
> ...


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thecheckout/

a two cherry hit for the home owners

















••

Unseasonabl cold??....of course - that's exactly what the models predict - *more extreme weather.*
Thanks for the example.
One cherry for you


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Of course, extreme weather, moderate weather, cold weather, hot weather...all indicative of GHG global warming--a tent so large that all evidence can be fit into it...somewhere.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

But, in the spirit of Christmas, I'll accept the gift of the cherry, and you can make some nice lemonade with your gift!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MF, how about you go ahead and prove that there is no Global Warming happening? It's easy to snipe the way you do -heck it seems to be the only thing you do - so "Mr I don't believe in Science" how about removing your head from the safe climate of your butt and effectively denounce what the general body of scientists are saying....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: I don't need to disprove what has not been effectively proved. If "consesnus science" satisfies you, then be happy with that OK?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Now there you go again AS - cherry flavoured dreams.



> "We have to deal with greenhouse gases," John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co., said in a recent speech at the National Press Club. "From Shell's point of view, the debate is over. When 98 percent of scientists agree, who is Shell to say, 'Let's debate the science'?


Least someone has some common sense.


BTW science is a process and there are few laws but mnay in progress theories - minor things like gravity, evolution, flight.

It does however rely on gathered evidence and if you can't see that aspect......perhaps a white cane is in order.
You are exemplary in the type of ignorance and willful obstruction that those who seek to reduce GHGs face.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The Shell president smells the money that will come from being the first in the arena. Watch for it. The 98% figure is grossly overestimated, even if it includes those who believe that GHGs contribute an infinitesmal and acceptable level of warming.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The 98% figure is grossly overestimated, even if it includes those who believe that GHGs contribute an infinitesmal and acceptable level of warming.


Then what is it? Where are YOUR sources?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah put up or shut up - you've been asked to back up your nonsense dozens of times.

The physics and chemistry of global warming due to GHG are actually very simple.
The impact and consequences and time frames for any given locale are very very complex.

The exact amount GHG contribution impacts on climate change is to some degree immaterial.
The consequences are already with us and accelerating and GHG are for sure adding to the rate of change and already as a result costing billions due to extreme weather and crop yield changes.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Kiwi fruit in Long Island 

Cool article in the NYT



> ENDLESS SUMMER Tom Wickham planted kiwis on Long Island.
> 
> ight out of my garden in December. But the extended growing season is one of the signs of global warming. It goes hand in hand with polar bears dying in the Arctic as the sea ice shrinks.
> 
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/garden/21garden.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

and a single Kiwi to the Times.......


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Great! just what I don't need! Ten times the ragweed pollen!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah that caught me by surprise to......reminds me of Jurassic Park and law of unintended consequences.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The Terminator wants to terminate GHGs.



> Schwarzenegger Remakes Himself as Environmentalist
> Governor Challenges GOP on Global Warming
> By John Pomfret
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> ...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/22/AR2006122201476.html

No














for Arnie :clap:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Malaysian floods worst in century*
> 
> Johor's main city is a popular destination for day-trippers from neighbouring Singapore [GALLO/GETTY]
> 
> ...


 

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2D81F413-DE61-444A-B707-1B2E4DAE529B.htm




> Australia. Worst drought in 1000 years
> Category: Global warming — Bob Morris @ 12:23 am
> It’s lasted five years, and is already beyond serious.
> 
> ...





> "The Australian government has absolutely jumped on greenhouse bandwagon in the last three or four months," he said.
> 
> "Although it won't sign Kyoto, it's now saying it wants to lead the drive for greenhouse gas emissions globally in a very aggressive leadership way.
> 
> *"That's largely due to the drought and the Stern report."*


Can we say EXTREMES!!!!!










No fruit today.......dried up or washed away


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Armadillos, leathery animals with poor vision, move north to Illinois*
> By JIM SUHR
> 
> 
> ...


 

wow and I thought possums in Ontario was a shocker,


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I saw possums in Ontario when I was kid in the very early '70s--no shocker. Neither are a few armadillos. I hear there are flying squirrels in the Toronto area but I have never seen on glide.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Giant ice shelf breaks free from Canadian Arctic*
> Updated Thu. Dec. 28 2006 7:54 PM ET
> 
> Canadian Press
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061228/ice_shelf_061228/20061228?hub=SciTech



> "Over the next few years this ice island could drift into populated shipping routes," Weir said.
> 
> "There's significant oil and gas development in this region as well, so we'll have to keep monitoring its location over the next few years."


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

in a related story, U.S. water companies offer to "liberate" the water in the ice

101st airborne on standby, bush to make announcement to the nation as to bringing democracy to the ice

"Water molecules, locked up for thousands of years shall finally find freedom;" he said from his Crawford, Texas home

Trump announced a new product with the ice; "Freedom water"
to be sold to U.S. troops via Halliburton
No other company was allowed to bid on the contract.

Dick Cheney was sequestered in his money vault counting his 30,000,000 pieces of silver.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

well well well.....hell freezing.....??



> Wal-Mart Puts Some Muscle Behind Power-Sipping Bulbs
> 
> 
> 
> ...


good read including on how Walmart is muscling it's suppliers in this cause.

:clap:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/business/02bulb.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Maybe we can get the Fraser Institute to do a non-biased Exxon paid study to denounce global warming again - MF would agree....
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hey if greed can = green I'm all for it no matter what the questionable venue.

That's what's so frustrating - industry in general has come around to seeing green=gold but the govs are foot dragging in setting up the playing field first and no one wants to play "mikey" first.

Good on Walmart for seeing the light......and likely gold.

•••

I thought this an interesting twist - I'm sure the nuke industry applauded.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/173514/15



> Turns out hydropower may not be as low-carbon as we thought
> Posted by Gar Lipow at 9:23 AM on 13 Nov 2006
> [ print | email | + digg | + del.icio.us | + reddit ]
> 
> ...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/01/forecast_2007_l.html#more

Fewer white Christmases.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Certainly getting attention



> Environment leads health as issue: Poll
> Email story
> Print
> Choose text Size
> ...


 

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/167977










Stephen Stephen Stephen.......methinks.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

New York City January 2006





































cherry blossom time??

oh yeah - that's Washington.....Jan 3rd

















http://www.nowpublic.com/spring_is_blossoming_in_dc_but_its_only_january


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

My back yard, January 2007. It's all relative. Colder than a well digger's butt and too much snow this winter. So what? Global warming my butt.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Obviously individual observations are not significant by themselves, and, at the risk of turning this into a "how's the weather" thread, it's 13 degrees here in Fredericton.

Certainly not 'normal' weather, if such a thing exists any more.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That's right greater extremes..more energy in the system, but blossoms full open in Washington in mid winter ????......I guess some people can't see the forest for the trees in bloom.

or the flowers in Switzerland












> Flowers blooming in a vineyard near Etoy, Vaud, Switzerland the last week of December 2006.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Psssst.

It's one winter in a thousand. Get over it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

No damn global warming here. Check our long term forecast:

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/cities/can/pages/caab0103.htm?ref=widgetcitypage


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC, you and MF make quite a team, and have been asked to elaborate our some of your fairy tale fantasies.... or should I call them minor distractions for the real focus...
So, are you just another Harperdroid who thinks that GHG and global warming is not a problem?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Here's what we should be doing. The Danes are making money off exporting the technology and you get a great idea of the incredible scale of their approach.

http://thrillingwonder.blogspot.com/2007/01/wind-power-in-stormy-waters.html#

They don't look all that imposing from shore.










then

a single blade 










and rotor hub.











and enroute










Now THAT's the kind of vision I want to see here. :clap:

....talk talk talk...... Get on with it..


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> No damn global warming here. Check our long term forecast:
> 
> http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/cities/can/pages/caab0103.htm?ref=widgetcitypage


check out the longer forecast


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Those wind turbines will interfere with natural wind patterns and lead to increased global warming.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dissecting SINCs and MF fatuousness is just boring and a repetitious.... 
I'm still waiting for their arguments. It seems that they prefer some vacuous attack with little ammunition.....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: I've said it before, be satisfied with your consensus proof. I'm not buying in, but don't need special theories to describe natural weather fluctuations.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ah the artful dodger.....what "natural causes" would those be??

No volcanoes, no solar increases, orbit hasn't changed - why it's not evena Russian secret weapon - I guess the Sphaghetti Monster waved it's tentacle.

So now we know the sum total of YOUR " theory" summed up so clearly as "natural fluctuations" does that mean you'll bugger off instead of making inane comments of things on you clearly know nothing about and apparently have not the capacity to understand?

You can revisit this thread a few years out and see how your "theory" has panned out.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I won't need to revisit the thread. You'll be dead from the stress of having people disgree with you.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> ... but don't need special theories to describe natural weather fluctuations.


Actually, what you have been needing is special interest group selling you "special" theories and half-assed ideas trying to explain why this is a "natural fluctuation"...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Was that a sentence?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Just can't resist the urge can you MF










as to "stressed" no as a matter of fact I'm quite content at the change in attitude towards a "real threat" instead of terror nonsense. 

Feel even better when we get some visonary projects on the go in Canada.instead of talk talk. 

I'd suggest if there is discomfort it's from the corner you've squeezed yourself into. Reality pressing into a bit too hard I guess.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

"You're all gonna fry!!!"


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I think it's time to rename this thread "Ego Warz." Maybe sell tickets.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

It's lovely to see self-delusion in your empirically unprovable explanation MF. Given that you've been asked to even slightly back up your theories and never have, your unsupported notions seem more like faith. 

Given that you seem faith driven when it comes to climate change, I can't help but be derisive. For it seems that reasonable scientific enquiry is beyond your grasp or aspirations. 

MacDoc and many have shown that there is room honest disagreement but you adhere to lame talking points. As always, you avoid all debate.

There seems to be an obstructionist viewpoint. Now many Conservadroids will gleefully say "the libs did nothing for 13 years". Now this is entirely true as noticed by all the cuts that the Cons to environmental programs. Kyoto came into effect in Feb of 2005 - this new math that Cons do is confusing... but seem to agree that something has to be about GHG...

Yes Beej, we all seem to agree that the Liberals could of done more.

The "clean air act" is a step backwards coupled with a muzzling of leading Environment Canada a repressible act. You up the ante with deliberate misinformation.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I bow down to Doc's superior ego.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> The "clean air act" is a step backwards coupled with a muzzling of leading Environment Canada a repressible act. You up the ante with deliberate misinformation.


That may be your opinion, but the truth is it is a step far ahead of the Liberal attempt. Course it isn't hard to beat zero.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: Honestly, the call to arms about GHGs is--to me--like a call to arms to fight an oncoming invasion of Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Flying Spaghetti Monsters don't exist??? Prove it!

And if you started to offer research funds to people to find proof of Flying Spaghetti Monsters (or little green men), the proof would be found. We'd just need to watch out for the Primo or Lancia lobby who would fund a disinformation campaign declaring that spaghetti is actually quite a benign type of pasta.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MF, here comes some more of that global warming our way again later this week:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

But you see SINC, both warm weather AND cold weather AND storms AND any weather all make the case for Global Warming--in fact there's no weather that doesn't make a case for global warming. Even benign weather is just the calm before the storm--sweet!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> But you see SINC, both warm weather AND cold weather AND storms AND any weather all make the case for Global Warming--in fact there's no weather that doesn't make a case for global warming. Even benign weather is just the calm before the storm--sweet!


Ah, I get it now I think MF. If there's weather, there's global warming, even when it is 30 below?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> We'd just need to watch out for the Primo or Lancia lobby who would fund a disinformation campaign declaring that spaghetti is actually quite a benign type of pasta.


:lmao: :lmao: 

For all the FSM-fearing folks, I think their challenge would be in convincing people that the FSM wants us to worship by the consuming of foods made in its image.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Wow MF, you are really witty....


:yawn:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Ah, I get it now I think MF. If there's weather, there's global warming?


No SINC, it just means that the source of "debunking" that you cite thinks you should be smoking as it's safe....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Ah, I get it now I think MF. If there's weather, there's global warming, even when it is 30 below?


Yes, exactly. Weather is the culprit. Individual "weathers" have ganged up on our climate.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> AS: Honestly, the call to arms about GHGs is--to me--like a call to arms to fight an oncoming invasion of Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Flying Spaghetti Monsters don't exist??? Prove it!





> both warm weather AND cold weather AND storms AND any weather all make the case for Global Warming--in fact there's no weather that doesn't make a case for global warming.


I think I understand your confusion. If you're actually honestly interested in understanding the evidence for the human factors influencing climate, and why the models of climate change are not non-falisifiable hypotheses, I can probably hook you up with some good references.

However, if you're simply enjoying having a laugh at the expense of many thousands of hard-working scientists, I wouldn't want to waste your time.

Cheers


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> MF, here comes some more of that global warming our way again later this week:


sinc, nobody is saying you should start planting lemon trees in your yard, but do check out the Edmonton 14 day forecast as of Jan 8, 2007 and see the upcoming "above normal" temps

(i'm in windows on my blackbook right now and don't have any "snapshot" sfw. loaded yet)

I've been asking people up here in Shangri-la and they don't remember this kind of mild, snowless wilnter in many, many years

let's also remember that toronto didn't have any snow to speak of last year

the climate is changing as it's proven that arctic and antarctic ice is melting at incredible rates

what this does the planet on a long term basis is yet to be seen


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> sinc, nobody is saying you should start planting lemon trees in your yard, but do check out the Edmonton 14 day forecast as of Jan 8, 2007 and see the upcoming "above normal" temps


Well Michael, I just loaded if for you and there are more severe "BELOW NORMAL" temperatures than above.

Your point is?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i count more above normal temp days then below normal temp days
i'm rather surprised by the mild normal temp for edmonton this time of year

damn Liberals.....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i count more above normal temp days then below normal temp days
> i'm rather surprised by the mild normal temp for edmonton this time of year
> 
> damn Liberals.....


8 days below average and 6 days above is more? You must be using Liberal math.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> ... thousands of hard-working scientists


I don't doubt they're working hard.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Interesting study.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html

I love his final thoughts in the article.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

From the study: :clap: :clap: 

""The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity," he said. The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. "Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not."

"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and *may now be* affecting global temperatures.

Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, *both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.*

Be careful what you pick and choose SINC and don't mistake your fantasies for reality...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and *may now be* affecting global temperatures.
> 
> Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, *both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.*
> 
> Be careful what you pick and choose SINC and don't mistake your fantasies for reality...



That goes both ways:

"Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that *Dr Solanki's findings were inconclusive* because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors."


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Good. Now we're talking about the extent of human-induced climate change, instead of the alternative.

So, 10% influence, 50%, 90%? With what likelihoods attached? It's all quite uncertain but, given a reasonable read of current knowledge, who would advocate doing nothing/next-to-nothing? 

This is not a matter of the overused cautionary principle that enviro-nuts adhere to (ie. don't do anything different until it is proven to be "safe"). It is simply evaluating a real risk, given the balance of evidence. It would be irresponsible to ignore it, given the evidence at hand. And no, there is not 100% certainty. Nor is there 100% certainty that one could survive crossing the street. So you take your precautions and get on with it. The reason to act is simple. Setting the magnitude of action that is justified is complex, as is the geo-politics.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think what's interesting is that if a reasonable person were to posit that 1% of the global warming was caused by humans, the more rabid hardliners among us wouldn't soften their stance to admit that perhaps 95% was caused by humans. They'd thank you for the one and ask when they would get the other 99.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I don't think that most are not open to some "natural" phenomenon - what's quite disingenuous on your part MF is your have been totally dismissive of the 95 or 99%....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Solar physicist Dr. Sami Solanki is director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (Photo courtesy MPS)
> 
> *He says that based on his team's research, the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20 to 30 years.*
> "Just how large this role is, must still be investigated," he says, "since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earths temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide."


http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2004/2004-08-03-03.asp

First - 2 years is a lifetime as this phenomena gets more closely analysed.

Second - if there is a relationship it is unclear. Sunspot and cosmic ray activity ( which I brought up earlier BTW ) could indeed be an amplifier. Bad news indeed as that might explain why events are proceeding faster than anticipated.



> In addition, the MPS scientists took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth.
> 
> "Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, *the Earths temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time," *


conclusion



> They came to the conclusion that the variations on the Sun run parallel to climate changes for most of that time, indicating that the Sun has indeed influenced the climate in the past. Just how large this influence is, is subject to further investigation.
> 
> However, they said, "since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming.


This a very dangerous Catch 22 facing the planet - as particulates clean up the heating jumps. 

And no solace of natural correction



> Deep ice tells long climate story
> By Jonathan Amos
> Science reporter, BBC News, Norwich
> 
> ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm

Whether it's being amplified by "natural processes" or not ....it's here and way too fast.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

An interesting examination of how CO2 emissions DON'T begin periods of Global Warming but result from them:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dystopia arrives.....natural gas transport China circa 2005.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0816_050816_gas_theft.html

Your article only reinforces that CO2 warms the planet.
We know other sources CAN. Trouble is there are none of those factors at play now...only CO2.



> All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
> 
> The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.


The first 800 years of THAT specific warming period .....the remaining 4200 years.....CO2.

Since we have ONLY CO2 as a warming factor currently present, it only supports GHG as the current major contritbutor to a warming planet.

Strange how these 2 year old articles surface purportedly in support of the obfuscators cause ( this one only reinforces GHG impnact ).
Not much left to take a stand on


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?id=12164

The backgrounder on what the Liberals endorsed:
http://www.climateactionnetwork.ca/e/news/2007/backgrounder-2007-01-09.html

More politics news than policy news. The "plan" has some good ideas but doesn't really address the problem. It has targets and no way to meet them. Sounds familiar, except something (perceptible government action, not necessarily measurable progress) is done now.

This does have interesting politics swirling around it. The Cons can accept this, or the NDP proposal and pretty much shut everybody else up without doing much. Or ignore it and the opposition can rally around their supposed solutions which will always be hypothetically better (simply point to targets). The Cons then need to come up with something on their own. Again.

We still won't make the targets without much more in the way of policy, but, in the case of Kyoto, can negotiate Kyoto Phase II to favourably carry-forward our failure and make it a problem for another set of politicians. 

Alternatively, someone could up the ante and step forward saying it's not even close to enough. The risk is that voters don't agree because they like a plan that looks like it won't affect them much. Canadians want to feel like they're doing something about this issue. The best option for providing that feeling wins.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> Canadians want to feel like they're doing something about this issue. The best option for providing that feeling wins.


Exactly:-it's their feelings and not their needs that must be addressed. So why not do so with some good policy that doesn't rely on catastrophic warming scenaria to validate it. Even some EhMacers are so scared they've become illucid and they need to be molified before they and others like them do real damage.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Climate Experts Worry as 2006 Is Hottest Year on Record in U.S.
> By Marc Kaufman
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Wednesday, January 10, 2007; Page A01
> ...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901949.html


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> So why not do so with some good policy that doesn't rely on catastrophic warming scenaria to validate it. Even some EhMacers are so scared they've become illucid and they need to be molified before they and others like them do real damage.


That's the spirit MF! It's your ineptitude and those like you that have helped propagate this climate. So why not continue on the disinformation path? 

Again small changes that many take can have a cumulative results (if it were not so, we could all give up on paying taxes), add firms “greening” their offerings and a little legislation and you may get something..

So far, to every argument, fact posted, your reaction has been “no it’s not”.
Now you may like to antagonize for fun or it maybe your character but we are still waiting for you to post something of substance.

You lack, so far, would seem to indicate you prefer tired rhetoric.


The cynicism that the Beej expresses is a valid one. I’m hoping that with this “odd” weather the message of that many will wake up and feel that there is something wrong with the weather due to Global Warming. 
I don’t think that Harper has had an epiphany (how else explain his denying for all those years and suddenly waking up?). If the present government continues to pay lip service to the environment, some may get frustrated enough and place their votes elsewhere and not give him that majority he so desires. The “blame the liberals” message may work, so the winners in all of this would be the NDP, Greens and BQ. 
I’m hoping that the “Clean Air Act” take 2, is not some farce like it’s predecessor.
Cancelling previous environment programs just because they were Liberal, does inspire me to think that the Cons will rise above partisan politics.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

A reminder why many are skeptical.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

If anything, an article from 1974 should reinforce how much we have messed with the environment since then...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Geez mining the depths - ignorance knows no bounds.
Particulate pollute, aerosols were actually shielding the planet from the worst effects of GHG pollution.
As the air cleared in the 80s and 90s thanks to efforts to reduce them, the shielding is reduced and the heating is accelerating.

Aersols have a very different persistence that GHG and the idea of tolerating one very pernicious form of pollution to offset another is about as useful as your post.

If you wish to continue to look foolish.....be my guest.
Otherwise learn something



> Aerosols: A Short Primer
> Aerosols are concentrations of exceedingly minute particles suspended in the atmosphere. Aerosol particles range in size from 0.01 micrometer (millionth of a meter) to several tens of micrometers in diameter. Particles generated by pollution tend to be less than a millimeter in diameter.
> The particles enter the atmosphere from many different natural and anthropogenic (human activity–related) sources. For example, nature generates sulfate aerosols from volcanoes, salt aerosols from sea spray, dust aerosols from desert areas, and carbonaceous aerosols formed from volatile organic compounds emitted by plants.
> *A growing fraction of aerosols are byproducts of human activities, as seen in the ubiquitous hazes that persist in the industrialized regions of the world. Anthropogenic aerosols include sulfuric acid, soot and smoke from the burning of fossil fuels in factories, vehicles, power plants, cookstoves, and fireplaces. The burning of forests and grasslands to clear them for farming is another source of carbonaceous aerosols.*


http://www.llnl.gov/str/April03/Chuang.html

Brilliant concept MacG lets make the air more unbreathable to make the temperature increases less unbearable.



> But two weeks ago, NASA took what it called "a big step forward" in its understanding of aerosols. The late Yoram Kaufman at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., and colleagues uncovered what aerosol particles do to clouds. It depends on the aerosols' color. Goddard's Lorraine Remer explains: "When the overall mixture of aerosol particles in pollution absorbs more sunlight, it is more effective in preventing clouds from forming. When pollutant aerosols are lighter in color and absorb less energy, they have the opposite effect and actually help clouds to form."
> 
> The researchers explained in the online edition of the journal Science how they used observations from robot observers at 200 sites around the world to pin down this effect. They also made extensive surveys of sky conditions from 17 locations such as Beijing and Rome. They estimate that the net result, world-wide, has been a 5 percent increase in global cloud cover.
> 
> ...


http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0727/p17s01-stss.html

Aerosols and GHG are wreaking havoc with climate patterns all over the world. That Canada is one of the few regions likely to benefit mean we most of all need to be seen to be taking very active steps to reduce the pollutants.

A







for that lame attempt. 
You're a credit to the Cons there MG.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Hey Doc...still taking your "GHG neutral" flight to South Africa? After all, the airplanes are spewing aerosols at extremely high altitudes where they can do more damage. It isn't all about GHGs you know.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MF, I'll help you with talking points here
Dr Tim Ball would like people to understand climate change
http://nrsp.com/people-timothy-ball.html.
He's a shill for the Alberta Petroleum Industry under the Natural Resources Stewardship Project.

Yes it's a fancy name and you'd expect some neutrality but the good Dr. can remove any pretense with his cries to the right wingers:


> THIS IS AN URGENT REQUEST FOR ALBERTANS TO QUIZ STEPHANE DION ABOUT HIS PRO-KYOTO AND OTHER CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY WHEN HE APPEARS IN TOWN HALL MEETINGS LATER THIS WEEK. I HOPE SOME OF THE ALBERTAN READERS OF THIS FORUM ARE ABLE TO DO THIS!


http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=888142#888142

As nice and easy as it is to continually blame the Liberals for what they did not do maybe the good Dr. should be asking what Harper and fiends will be doing? 
I won't be holding my breath....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Why should Tim Ball be "neutral" about his beliefs? Does "neutrality" imply that he won't promote his own ideas over those of others? Give me a break.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Geez mining the depths - ignorance knows no bounds.
> Particulate pollute, aerosols were actually shielding the planet from the worst effects of GHG pollution.
> As the air cleared in the 80s and 90s thanks to efforts to reduce them, the shielding is reduced and the heating is accelerating.
> 
> ...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Why should Tim Ball be "neutral" about his beliefs? Does "neutrality" imply that he won't promote his own ideas over those of others? Give me a break.


He's promoting the PR of the Alberta Petroleum Industry - his paymasters.
He's asking to attack Dion.

So where is he promoting his ideas?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> I was merely pointing out how the climate porn of the seventies sounds strikingly similar to the climate porn of today but with totally opposite doom and gloom predictions. Hence the skepticism of the claims of many in the environmental religion.


And something was done about the cause "of climate porn" of the 70s.....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> ...keep bantering like a surly troll and making things up.


He's angry because you're not giving him his due as a Professor of Climatology in the Macintosh Computer Sales and Service faculty of MacDoc U.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: Tim Ball doesn't agree with Kyoto or Dion. He's asking people to oppose both. You may disagree with him, but I don't see the problem here. Would you post links about GHGassers organizing a rally against Stephern Harper or his Environment Minister?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> AS: Tim Ball doesn't agree with Kyoto or Dion. He's asking people to oppose both.


I would not be hiding behind a "non-profit, non-partisan organization" to promote my views as the good Dr. is doing....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I checked the web site of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (certainly shows that GHG theorists have not reached a consensus--the list of scientific advisors on its board is huge) but what more do you expect of them? I think they're quite open in stating their goals, strategies and interests.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MF, stop being so facetious, you are more capable than that.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MacG- don't confuse your fav fairy stories with climate - the latter really will roast you. 
Virtual cannibalism not working to well lately I guess.

••

There is enonmous consensus in the climate community that GHGs need to be controlled and within the decade.

There will always be arguments about best method and percentage of impact of various factors, there is lots of room for different strategies to deal with the consequences and try and ameliorate the hit.

But trying to deny the validity of current and consensus knowledge that GHG are impacting global climates is just as ludicrous as denying the warming was happening in the first place.

Somebody gets it



> ast Updated: Wednesday, 10 January 2007, 16:18 GMT
> 
> E-mail this to a friend Printable version
> EU plans 'industrial revolution'
> ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6247199.stm



> EU calls for low-carbon 'revolution'
> 
> January 08, 2007
> ASSOCIATED PRESS
> ...


Over a trillion dollars US just to meet growth just in Europe and just in electricity- makes the hydrogen grid for North America look a bargain.

So MF and MG - what do you think the response to your "head in the sand" approach would be in European power circles??.......gales and gales of laughter no doubt.

There's always a few flat earthers about to remind about the spectrum of silliness.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

solar and wind would be great if only lots of research money was thrown at it
and i mean manhattan project money
but the oil lobby doesn't want that because how do you charge for sunlight?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: I have never particularly admired Europe. But as I've stated, I DO support a move to more nuclear power, and a firm hand on the Oil Sands project. The hydrogen grid sounds good in theory, and I'd support a pilot project for that.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Over a trillion dollars US just to meet growth just in Europe and just in electricity- makes the hydrogen grid for North America look a bargain.


A full hydrogen grid with supply would cost far more, even once it's out of the "what if" stage. I don't think many realise how truly expensive these sorts of things are, even for the cheapest solutions using existing technology, much less the fancier options. Huge quantities of capital are required and, if governments feel the need to "manage" them instead of just taxing emissions, then they have to do it wisely or we'll be looking at the Ontario nuclear boondoggle * 100 with questionable GHG results. 

Wind in Germany is an example. They installed huge amounts of wind capacity (rolling the higher costs into the total, forcing everyone to pay), much while it was very expensive, and we get the benefit of economic/near-economic wind generation now. Thank you Germany. 

Ontario provided a lot of the full-scale experience to make the CANDU designs more realiable and with more predictable costs. Ontario has the debt, someone else gets the nice CANDUs and AECL still requires government handouts.

This is not a situation where governments perform well (another reason carbon taxes are a better idea) so they'll need close supervision once they start implementing policies that will really get things done.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macfury said:


> MacDoc: I have never particularly admired Europe. But as I've stated, I DO support a move to more nuclear power, and a firm hand on the Oil Sands project. The hydrogen grid sounds good in theory, and I'd support a pilot project for that.



Contrary to what MacDoc claims I think or said in some alternate universe, I second your support for clean energy! The less smog we have to live with the better it is for everyone. My hopes for our country is that any commitments we make to satisfy our carbon commitments will actually be meaningful to reduce pollution, improve our infrastructure and increase our energy capacity. I'd also like to see us oil independent from the middle east. Also, sending billions of tax payers dollars to countries like China for carbon credits sounds like a global welfare scheme to me. Lets keep it hear and develop clean energy alternatives or use it to fund badly needed sewage filtration plants and the likes.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

once again, i repeat, wind and solar
plus robust conservation like banning all incandecent light bulbs
tax credits for energy efficient appliances like fridges and stoves
heavy tax (like in europe) for cars with engines over 2 liters
choose 2.5 if that make you happier, but here has to be a tax on vehicles that consume more fuel
minimum fuel mileage standards
i remember this being all the rage in the late 70s and quietly died at the hands of lobbyists
i believe california is trying to bring them back and the car industry is screaming bloody murder
you gotta wonder why car makers would worry about higher fuel mileage standards
why should they care? unless of course they are in league with big oil
nawww, couldn't be true, could it?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Beej


> A full hydrogen grid with supply would cost far more, even once it's out of the "what if" stage


I guess you've done more extensive costing than JPL Labs. Have you actually read the article?? Of course things like this will go over budget - so did Sir Adam Beck.

It's not a "what if" technology. It's buildable in stages anad there is no new technology required tho of coourse most cost effective manufacturing is needed. It resolves the current loss over distance issues with renewing the existing grid and yes there are challenges on hydrogen for transport but there is no challenge for hydrogen fuel cells.
The H grid has a lot going for it as a gradual replacement for the aging current non-cryogenic grid and very important as a "electricity load leveling"/storage method. It lets sutiable renewable locations to feed energy over hundreds or thousands of miles with no loss and always able to absorb the full oad available.

Wind power, all renewables will never reach heavy load capacity unless a huge breaktrough in solar comes about but we'll need all it has to give anyways and be able to store and transport it.
That's what the trillion is for in Europe just to meet electrical demand growth and that demand is only some 40% of energy requirements.

I'm quite sure people trotting along happily in their buggies said the "iron horse" was unproven and electricity a fad and horseless carriages  pshawww. 

To cope with 50% more people and hundreds of millions of newly power hungry upwardly mobile planet dwellers it'll take all the vision and effort to meet demand without cooking the place and even then it'll be incredibly costly as the European study shows....and Europe's population is not soaring.

So many studies have shown the major problem is political will and lack of vision.

The hydrogen grid simply enhances ALL the other efforts to produce electricity cleanly and efficiently as it makes wind power from the BC coast available to say Ontario with close to zero loss. Lets all clean facilities run at full load and for instance in the case of Ontario allows the energy system to cope with enormous peaks without building major power generating capacity just to hit that demand. 
The total output capacity might remain 30-40% below peak draw as stored hydrogen is available to draw on.
I forget the exact number but the energy storage capacity of energy for just 100 miles of H grid was astounding.

Maybe the Guvinator can move JPLs test along faster. No better place than California to do it as they already have a small H infrastructure.

Maybe Ontario can have the same vision as it did in building the 401 and St. Lawrence Seaway. Success beyond the wildest dreams.

At least Edison and the Adam Beck engineers had the guts to "build it out".


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MD: $1 trillion for, "A full hydrogen grid with supply" in the U.S. (perhaps you're referring to Canada?) is not even close. If you have an estimate with a breakdown, I can point out the problems in it, or you can do the calcs yourself. Add to this cost multiples for the better technology (even after it is mass produced, it will require more) and you get the picture.

I assume you're not using that $1 trillion that was tossed off at the end of the supergrid article, so I'd like to see the real estimate and see what's going on with it.

As for "what if", I include economic preferability. There are many things that we could do right now to build a brand new clean energy system, but the costs are hideous, so they are "what ifs" even though they are physically possible.

It is not clear at all that a large hydrogen infrastructure, with all of its added costs, is better than electricity and batteries (ie. if you have $10 billion to research something, put a lot into developing better battery storage; maybe H2 is the best, but we're not close to knowing that yet). There are enormous energy losses involved in producing, shipping and generating electricity from hydrogen that can dwarf "line losses" of a conventional power system (10%).

There have been many "brave" visions for decades, and the best ones are worth researching and demonstrating, but there are also many that just don't work out. The nuclear build-out (too cheap to meter!) is an example. Great vision, brave government leadership and billions wasted around the world for a technology that is just now becoming competitive. It doesn't take guts (or brains) to spend other people's money. We need the most effective solutions, not the be-all-end-all ultimate grid for eternity, unless that happens to be the most effective. Overdoing the "build out" just swaps things like education and childcare for the best sounding technology.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*Alberta's oilsands just bit players in greenhouse gas emissions*

MF, et all, here's the real truth about the Alberta oil sands emissions:

“Canada, with about half of one per cent of the world's population, produces about two per cent of the world's greenhouse gases.
The rest of the planet accounts for the other 98 per cent, led by major emitters like the United States, the European Union, China, Russia and Japan.
Alberta's oilsands are often portrayed by the national media as the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases in Canada, but that's not true. Vehicle emissions easily outstrip those from the oilsands, by a factor of more than six to one.
At present, the oilsands account for about three per cent of Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions. That figure is growing fast, however, and could eventually hit 10 per cent as more than $100-billion worth of oilsands projects come onstream, according to a piece in Saturday's Globe and Mail.
So let's do some basic math, then, shall we?
Three per cent of two per cent equals less than one-tenth of one per cent. In other words, the sum total of the oilsands' current contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions is less than one-tenth of one per cent.
By the time Alberta's new oilsands projects ramp up -- boosting output to roughly three million barrels of bitumen a day by 2015, from about one million barrels currently -- they'll account for roughly one-fifth of one per cent of global emissions, based on the Globe's math.”

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourn....html?id=4b0c0be6-899e-4afc-93b8-36c2d7f1295e


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

No single human-caused point of emissions in the world matters much. That's part of the problem.

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


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> No single human-caused point of emissions in the world matters much. That's part of the problem.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons


Well, if that's the case, my paying taxes does not have much impact on the whole federal budget, should I stop now?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

To SINC here is the canned response to your quote:
Why should Canada have to adopt Kyoto when we only produce two per cent of the world’s emissions?

Climate change is a global problem and the solution must be global.

Canadians currently produce about 700 megatonnes of greenhouse gases per year, much of it from wasteful energy use. This is about two per cent of total global emissions, coming from a country with about half of one per cent of the world’s population. 

In other words, the average Canadian produces four times the global average level of emissions – 23.6 tonnes per person, per year.

By taking action to reduce emissions, we will accept responsibility for the damage we are causing, demonstrate our leadership in the world community and promote innovation and energy efficiency among our own industries. Other benefits include job creation, cleaner air and a cleaner environment.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Kyoto/FAQs.asp#Why


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

So, by spending millions of taxpayers dollars on carbon credits to other countries we clean the planet of GHG? Gimme a break.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

As for the curbing our emissions SINC, most know that this is not some magic bullet. 

Yes Canada produces very little compared to the US but are you suggesting that we do nothing or just ignore the problem? 

Our per capita basis for pollution is one of the worse ….

As for Kyoto (which we have signed), lets use this analogy. If the worst human rights abusers have not signed certain international human rights agreements, does that mean we should not participate?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> As for the curbing our emissions SINC, most know that this is not some magic bullet.
> 
> Yes Canada produces very little compared to the US but are you suggesting that we do nothing or just ignore the problem?
> 
> ...


with guys like Peter McKay, the signing of documents mean little to a conservative as we recall when he was leader of the PC party of Canada


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC, you are really using the tired old Con talking points aren’t you….

Maybe you should do some research on the mechanism of carbon trading. 
This is a market based (the right wingers should love the free market no?) initiative that should spur competition and innovation given the financial benefits involved. Canada has a real chance at becoming a leader in this field (you are patriotic aren’t you?).

You can use “market forces” in a free economy to change behavior.
If one company can exceed it’s targets, it will be able to sell it to another company. 
So the one that exceeds makes some money selling and with that incentive will look to continuing to improve.
Why is the free market good enough for all human problems (in the eyes of Cons) but not for GHG reduction?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: I don't suggest thatthe Oil Sands project be stopped--only that it strikes me as a good idea to set benchmarks for maximum emissions on any sort of project. I don't mean that it should be singled out either. Since this project isn't in full swing yet, parts of it could be designed to limit CO2 poduction. 

When the earth turns much colder, all regs are off.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> When the earth turns much colder, all regs are off.


I'll buy you a Hummer then....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> I'll buy you a Hummer then....


isn't that illegal?
oh, not that kind of hummer....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I think only solicitation is illegal. Darned Hummer salespeople.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I checked the web site of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (certainly shows that GHG theorists have not reached a consensus--the list of scientific advisors on its board is huge) but what more do you expect of them? I think they're quite open in stating their goals, strategies and interests.



You new found hero is in court. Can't wait to see the outcome of this...


> On April 19, 2006, the Herald published an article by Tim Ball, whom the newspaper identified as the first climatology PhD in Canada and a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years.
> 
> On April 23, 2006, the Herald published a response from Dr. Dan Johnson, a professor at the Univesity of Lethbridge, in which Johnson pointed out that neither of those descriptions is true; that Dr. Ball's credential were being seriously overstated.
> 
> ...


http://www.desmogblog.com/tiim-ball-vs-dan-johnson-update


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Some interesting news items:

From Simpson at the G&M:
......................
Stephen Harper's Conservatives are planning to trump the Liberals on climate change, thereby removing one of the government's biggest vulnerabilities and improving its chances of parliamentary survival.
......................


General news:
......................
Does that mean going to a reduction of the full 100 megatonnes annually? Mr. Layton says that's his current objective, but he will not verbally commit to pressing the government on that specific number.

Nor will the Liberals, who say such a commitment would be irresponsible without some serious thought.
......................



Shifting sands. It is beginning to look like, were it not for the political desire to get credit and take shots, the parties are not that far apart on this issue. This should be the case, given that Canadians want something done, but are not quite ready for huge changes. Public opinion seems to be finally sending some clearer messages. The public will warm up to bigger changes later, so to speak, but right now the yahoos have the opportunity to agree on how to start. Or make it an election issue.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> You new found hero is in court.


LOL! AS , I had no idea who he was before you posted that link! Talk about knocking down your own straw men!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oh man. Not only that but you're fighting your own straw man with the reports of some blogger who was an active participant in the Kyoto non-accord.

Gosh, I wonder who his "paymasters" are?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MF, the only person who can politisize court documents....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: Please get a grip on yourself. I have no problem with the court documents and I couldn't care less about the guy. _You're_ the one who brought him up!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/realitycheck/sheppard/20070111.html

A CBC "Reality Check" on nuclear in the oil sands. Gets near the important points, but doesn't finish them. More of a, "Think about it" than a "Reality Check." 

So, er, think about it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=dc8adc51-2da3-4f9a-ac1f-41a017f5422b&k=11718
..........................................
The online survey of close to 3,000 Canadians by Innovative Research found that just 31 per cent of respondents agreed with the statement that Canada must do its part to fight global warming, and implementing the Kyoto accord is "the best way to do it."

Roughly double that number -- 59 per cent -- agreed Canada must do its part, "but implementing the Kyoto accord is just one way we can do it."

Another six per cent said they're not convinced anything needs to be done on climate change, while four per cent said they didn't know.

Roughly seven out of 10 respondents agreed with the statement: "I don't care whether the new federal government implements Kyoto or not, so long as they take real action to make our environment better."
..........................................



Voters are getting clearer in their message and thinking on this issue. Good.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That's encouraging. A diverse response to this possible problem suggests a better result to me. Monolithic solutions in partnerships with countries who are less successful than Canada are not encouraging.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/01/eestor_announce.html#more

MD hasn't mentioned them for a while, so I have to. 

If this works, it is one of the those big things that could (depending on charge cycle efficiency) change the personal vehicle sector quite quickly and, by extension, the power grid.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Science Panel Says Global Warming Is ‘Unequivocal’
> John McConnico/Associated Press
> 
> Article Tools Sponsored By
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/s...&en=62f964d41c74a38d&ei=5094&partner=homepage


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Hey, if the UN is behind it, it's gotta be gold.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Hey, if the UN is behind it, it's gotta be gold.


Thanks for your pithy comment, MF. I'll safely ignore the report now. Good thing you're here to set things straight.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Gratuitous: I've got admit, I never really think about what you might do.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Based on the staggering amount of petty sniping which goes on in this one thread, I suggest we rename it, simply, "the gas thread."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: That was my original idea.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I've given up flying altogether. Have YOU?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I must have missed it... sorry. Too much smoke and shelling in the trenches, I guess.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: You won't catch me flying in the middle of a global climate crisis.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> SINC: You won't catch me flying in the middle of a global climate crisis.


Going around it are you?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I will also state that I have not flown since people really started wetting their pants over global warming--while other with a far greater fear have continued to fly, fly, fly around the world.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

We've go to get cow farting under control as well now that hundreds of scientists agree GH is real. That and all those airplanes flying people to places they shouldn't go.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Interesting juxtaposition of headlines on Google News Canada today.










So now that they're done being able to play denial, they're launching into stalling, bargaining and delaying. Harper and Bush - leading the way forward in the fight against the socialist Kyotophiles.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> We've go to get cow farting under control as well now that hundreds of scientists agree GH is real. That and all those airplanes flying people to places they shouldn't go.


For livestock GHG emissions, I think belches are the bigger problem. For local air quality... 

One day we will arrive at the bliss point for humanity whereby righteous souls will, without delay, kill meat-eating, SUV driving, Exxon gasoline buying, air conditioning, big house living, heated patio enjoying, daily commuting, electronic gadget collecting, incandescent bulb using, flying for fun planet destroyers. Amen.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *How global warming goes against the grain*
> MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT
> From Saturday's Globe and Mail
> 
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...wclimatestarve0224/BNStory/ClimateChange/home

Good read there's more


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Boost clean energy: UN report*
> 
> Feb 27, 2007 12:13 PM
> Charles J. Hanley
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/186161


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good news this......



> *Tree-huggers at the gate*
> Feb 27th 2007
> From Economist.com
> 
> ...


http://www.economist.com/daily/columns/businessview/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8764333

I understand that many large company are being examined as to their exposure to green legislation by their institutional investors.
When it starts hit the share prices negatively maybe we'll see some real progress instead of dodging and ducking.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Economist views used so often here are becoming = :yawn: 

I am beginning to think it is YOUR bible.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Lame attempt at juvenile humour

..the Economist is the number one magazine on the planet and while it has it's leanings and biases it would sure do YOU some good to absorb a bit of it's purveyed knowledge about the current state of any number of things on the planet....every week.....

...but you have to PAY for it.....like most good things.

since 1843


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Lame attempt at juvenile humour
> 
> ..the Economist is the number one magazine on the planet and while it has it's leanings and biases it would sure do YOU some good to absorb a bit of it's purveyed knowledge about the current state of any number of things on the planet....every week.....
> 
> ...



Oh, but I do MD. Matter of fact, my mag of choice was established long before the Economist. 51 years earlier to be exact. 

And its weather predictions have been over 80% correct since inception. Bet the Economist can't rival that in terms of being correct. 












Oddly enough, they've never predicted global warming either.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: _The Economist_ is Doc's intermittent favourite when it supports his pet gas theories. I'll bet he feels very proud of himself when he quotes from it.

Stern: It's Doc season.
MacDoc: Stern season.
Stern: Doc season...
MacDoc: Stern season...
Elmer Fudd: It's boring pundit season...which one of you wascals will get the pay off today?
MacDoc: I demand you pay Stern now!
Stern: Pay me later....pay me later...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Hurricane research:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/02/new_data_analys.html#more

Biofuel developments:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/02/doe_awards_up_t.html#more


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *TD urges taxation to fight pollution, global warming*
> 
> RENE JOHNSTON/TORONTO STAR
> TD Chief Economist Don Drummond suggests that to cut down on pollution, which contributes to global warming, a tax could be applied when the pollution is created. Thus, the consumer would pay for car pollution, and industry would pay for pollution associated with the production process.
> ...


:clap:

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/189364

•••

Beej - 

I'm a bit concerned that bio-fuel efforts may delay a more comprehensive solution tho the cellulose processes look good as the waste is there already. 

••

Europe really looking aggressive - 30% below 1990 by 2020. Wow wouldn't that be something.
Interesting that a driver for change is the big interests like insurance compnaies and banks and that "exposure to pollution fees" is now a factor in evaluating stocks.



> *EU leaders face climate challenge*
> 
> Some countries are reluctant to switch from fossil fuel power plants
> European leaders are expected to commit their countries to tough new emissions targets at a European Union summit focused on tackling global warming.
> ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6429097.stm

Remarkable and shameful for us that a diverse community such as EU can do so much better.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> :In a report released today by the TD Bank, economists argued that industry and consumers will not change their behaviour as long as it's cheap to pollute. They advocate a policy that combines emissions regulations, taxes, subsidies and a trading system for emissions credits – a varied approach they say would mitigate the impact on the economy.


I'm guessing TD smells money here. Dig a little deeper and I'll bet one of their many business ventures is setting itself up as a carbon trading broker. They rarely suggest anything that won't make them piles of moolah.



MacDoc said:


> :Remarkable and shameful for us that a diverse community such as EU can do so much better.


Not remarkable at all considering they've devolved much further along the socialist spectrum than us. For them, draconian regulation is already a way of life.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> For them, draconian regulation is already a way of life.


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Draconian???........MOST would say civilized ...considering the alternatives.
Your model society to the south seems to find itself some $50 trillion in the hole....and counting.

••

BIt of a long shot but look at that number at the bottom = 20,000 gallons of fuel per acre.



> *Venture Capitalists Want to Put Some Algae in Your Tank*
> 
> Sandy Huffaker for The New York Times
> Algae may be slime to the average person, but to some venture capitalists it is the path to energy independence.
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/b...cf0fde7dce0a&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

A clip from "The Unchained Goddess" directed by Frank Capra in 1958, shows that scientists were well aware of the possibilities for human caused climate change 50 years ago. Although the info is simplified, in the style of the 1950s educational films that most over 40s will fondly remember, it presents the same information that is pretty well known today (finally). 

When I first saw this a few days ago, I thought it was a fake someone made to look like an old film, but no, it's real. So it's actually taken half a century to overcome oil industry funded propaganda. That's pretty sad.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> So it's actually taken half a century to overcome oil industry funded propaganda. That's pretty sad.


Quite the leap in logic there GA. Making up more multi-decade narratives. From provacative question in educational video to 50 year conspiracy because we didn't rush to action.

The desk manufacturer's propaganda kept us thinking that hiding under their fabulous products during a nuclear attack was the way to go. Took decades to get away from that one.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's a pretty sweet remix all right. Makes it look like the point of the film was to raise concerns about global warming--which it definitely was not. You realize that thousands upon thousands of such films were made during those decades? Look hard enough and you can prove that everyone knew everything in the '50s.


"Meet George Jetson..."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

When GHG were first identified in 1824 and investigated in 1896 the musing was that warmer would be good.

The "in moderation" caveat did not occur since human populations has not hit 500 million yet let alone 6 billion.

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

Times change.

••••

Farmer's Almanac??
Sinc gonna pull out the astrology charts next. You and Ronnie Raygun make quite a pair.

80% eh - must be that ol' Con "gut feeling" again- just pull a number.


Reality



> In Region 15, the Pacific Northwest, there were a total of 13 precipitation forecasts. Only 23% of the forecasts were correct, 38% were quantitatively wrong and 38% were not only wrong but had the wrong sign. For the 21 Region 15 temperature forecasts 33% verified as correct, 38% were quantitatively wrong and 29% had the wrong sign. Overall in the Pacific Northwest only 29% of the forecasts verified as being correct.
> 
> For California, Region 16, a total of 11 precipitation forecasts and 19 temperature forecasts were evaluated. Of the precipitation cases 36% were correct, 27% were quantitatively wrong and the remaining 36% had the incorrect sign. The temperatures for region 16 were only correct 16% of the time, had the wrong sign in 32% of the cases and were quantitatively wrong 53% of the time. Overall the California forecasts were correct only 23% of the time.


http://ggweather.com/farmers/farmers2001.htm

Go back to straw chewing........it suits.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> Quite the leap in logic there GA. Making up more multi-decade narratives. From provacative question in educational video to 50 year conspiracy because we didn't rush to action.


Sorry, I forgot Exxon-Mobil and the others have been doing nothing but trying to get at the facts around climate change in an open and fair environment nor would ever dream of getting involved in anything approaching propoganda. Any hint at criticism of these benevolent giants will in future be of the mildest variety so as not to besmirch their shining public images. I'm sure they're happy you're always so quick to jump to their defence when any hint of potential sweeping generalizations threatens their good works. I will always use clinically exact language in the future when speaking of the oil industry. Better?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

GA - don't waste your time on the flat earthers - they're just annoyed their myths are have been discounted so soundly..

Better you contribute in a constructive manner - something the flat earthers are incapable of.
Beej has much to contribute once he gets past the contrarian bent and maybe a teeny tiny bit of conflict of interest


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Honestly, Beej:


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

That was very well done. It sort of scares me how much trouble to went to in giving it an air of authenticity. I like how you have the scrawny one begging to show off his carbon assets... that was good for a laugh.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Any hint at criticism of these benevolent giants will in future be of the mildest variety so as not to besmirch their shining public images. I'm sure they're happy you're always so quick to jump to their defence when any hint of potential sweeping generalizations threatens their good works.


:-( 

Sensitive when your theories are shot down? Sorry, no sacred cow theories and bowing and chanting to "conventional wisdom", GA. Have all the faith you want, just don't expect it to be taken as fact. 

A lot of interests have been pushing against the climate change concept for a long time, including individuals. Some political barriers exist because of good intentions from people who didn't get it (too many people convinced this would be easy regarding visible policy changes). But, from the pulpit, that's not neat enough, is it?

It's not like having a better idea about what's going on would help find better ways to approach the problem, right? And it's not like, once a "bad guy" is identified, that we should allow for any thought on what is interfere with what's the simplest thing to say, right? Ooops, there I go again. beejacon

Simply put: Environmentalists have, for decades, conspired to bring about a global warming crisis to push their agenda. You must accept the pronouncement from on high or you're just defending them!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> NRSP Controlled by Energy Lobbyists
> 
> 18 Jan 07
> Two of the three Directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project are senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto-based lobby firm that specializes in “energy, environment and ethics.”
> ...


http://www.desmogblog.com/nrsp-controlled-by-energy-lobbyists

Let's see Friends of Science, now NRSP ....... follow the money.

••••

Poor MacFury - graffiti now !- reality must be most irritating these days. Can't defend your view so reduced to attacking the messenger.
If I'm getting under your skin so much I guess my campaign must be effective......fair bit of effort you put in to demonstrate that :clap:

It IS well done and MOST illuminating.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Let's see Friends of Science, now NRSP ....... follow the money.


Yep, that about sums it up...

"So it's actually taken half a century to overcome oil industry funded propaganda."

Extrapolate to 50 years and only the oil industry (probably energy in general) being behind what has taken so long. Heck, let's just say they've been doing it since the 19th century (you mentioned this has been theorised since then). Not developing the science, other industries and political organisations, normal time for such large challenges to gain public support even once the scientific consensus is there etc. 

But no, that's not worth it when the fiction is for a good cause, eh MD? It's not like you've advocated for critical thinking, challenging accepted wisdom and accuracy before (one example: tv viewing distances, of all things). It's just me, right? Right. "with us or 'agin us"


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

OK--another creaky story about lobbyists and conflict of interest. How about this one? 

The UN votes to try to extort money from its wealthiest members. The UN "elite", is known for corruption, embezzlement and money laundering, skimming the gravy from programs it administers (Oil for Food). The same UN elite promotes the single largest transfer of wealth it can imagine--carbon credits. Under the scheme, wealthier countries pay billions of dollars to the poorer ones for the privilege of producing carbon dioxide. Oh yeah, the countries on the receiving end of this largesse do nothing--in fact, they're still allowed to produce carbon dioxide. It's legitimate, because the countries waiting for the cash voted overwhelmingly to support the scheme. The money isn't coming fast enough, so "studies" insist the Earth is in crisis unless the money starts to flow soon. These studies are commissioned by the same group of UN "elites" who want to see the wealth transfers occurring. All of the studies bear out exactly what they want them to. In fact, they often announce the results in advance. 

Isn't that a conflict of interest?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

A good example of smearing with a large brush, MF. Nice tie-in with Oil for Food too, using that recent and real problem to add credibility to the whole thesis. You've clearly laid out the financial benefit = conflict and smear-by-association approaches that are often established as proof (by conventional wisdom).

Have you considered a career in lobbying? beejacon


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *EU agrees renewable energy target*
> 
> EU states will have to embrace wind, solar and hydroelectric power
> European Union leaders have agreed to adopt a binding target on the use of renewable energy, such as wind and solar power, officials say.
> ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6433503.stm

Somebody showing some leadership to the white feather crowd.

Even China



> *China wakes up to environment crisis*
> 
> Mar 09, 2007 04:30 AM
> Both the United States and China – the largest emitters of greenhouse gases – have a goal to make sure those emissions grow more slowly than their economies. Yet both are barely making progress. Of the two, China now seems to want to act more boldly.
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/article/189892

••••

NRSP/Friends of Science a sensitive issue I see....how interesting. Check for blisters.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Better them than us putting the grunt money into these technologies. We'll check out the ash heap of their expensive mistakes, then employ the best of them.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> NRSP/Friends of Science a sensitive issue I see....how interesting. Check for blisters.


Not really MD, I work with all sorts in this imperfect world, including Egan. Darned imperfection.  

Blisters? http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/

We do what we can, and it will never be enough, especially to groups that only see a narrow world of causality while holding a broad brush, MD.

So why are innaccuracy and unsupported broad timelines and trends ok here? Rational and supported discussion and theory everywhere else? That's not what I thought you were about. No sacred cows.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Where did I support broad timelines and revionism??
Charting the growing awareness and actual orgins of climate change science just anchors the current concern within a time frame.

The last 10 years, even the last 3 or 4 have seen enormous change in both understanding and level of concern.

That does not make those that made early warnings heroes or villains - it simply supports the notion that "research" and critical observation" may prove valuable far down the line.

Hey even Malthus may yet be more prescient than we know... Rwanda may have been a canary.



> And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time.


T S Eliot

Turns out the Montreal accord unwittingly has extended the GHG "cushion to act" time frame by 10 years.

Acid rain abatement, the Great Lakes cleanup, the Thames river ( and London smog ) cleanup, the Montreal accord all can be counted relative successes over time and all had "costs" associated and none are slain dragons.

Dealing with climate change is a hydra by comparison - arguing about which sword to use and how hard to swing it or whether to ignore it entirely strikes me as rather pathetic.

Get on with it.

•••••

Apple? - defence by diversion??


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Dealing with climate change is a hydra by comparison - arguing about which sword to use and how hard to swing it or whether to ignore it entirely strikes me as rather pathetic.
> 
> Get on with it.



You were right Beej. This isn't a mere issue to be treated as other issues, this is a "Hydra" which must be tilted at immediately according to Mac Doc Quixote's own prescription.

Get on with it, indeed...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Acid rain abatement, the Great Lakes cleanup, the Thames river ( and London smog ) cleanup, the Montreal accord all can be counted relative successes over time and all had "costs" associated and none are slain dragons.
> 
> Dealing with climate change is a hydra by comparison - arguing about which sword to use and how hard to swing it or whether to ignore it entirely strikes me as rather pathetic.
> 
> ...


MD: The diversion is the finger-pointing, which is usually easier to do the less information one has or the less analysis one is willing to do. Then all sorts of pointing can go on by everyone, because it's not based on really looking at what has happened. It's based on striking the best pose.

You can also spend a lot of time describing the hydra of climate change and its effects. That doesn't kill it either (does not "get on with it"), but some of the news and research has been nice to read. 

Now, if you want to focus on how to slay the hydra, I've been posting on that for a while. Taxes, regulation etc. So get on with it if you'd like and talk about the right policies. I'm all for it.

Cap-and-trade, tax, both neither? How, specifically must they be implemented?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Discussion of best method is fine the proviso being eliminating the noise of

a) it's not really a problem and has been overblown

b) dealing with it will devastate economies


If those can't be put aside.... dialogue gets kinda useless.

*Climate change IS a serious global problem - magnitude - speed of change not yet fully determined.*

*Economies like Europe ARE addressing it without destroying themselves.*

If those are acceptable premises for discussion by all means lets discuss pros and cons of dealing with both and how it relates to Canadian efforts.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Discussion of best method is fine the proviso being eliminating the noise of
> 
> a) it's not really a problem and has been overblown
> 
> ...


a) It is really a problem.

b) Depends on how. There are many ways to do it, and that is one of them. The smart ways don't devestate economies.

......

Get to it. What policies, given Canada's political structure and sentiments, would you like to see as pushing the envelope?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Fair enough - I think we've seen enough in Europe and in California to at least get some direction.

What was your take on the TD article?? Odd for a bank to call for taxation.
Lesser evil maybe??

Hey we'll put all ATM fees in a green fund..


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Fair enough - I think we've seen enough in Europe and in California to at least get some direction.
> 
> What was your take on the TD article?? Odd for a bank to call for taxation.
> Lesser evil maybe??
> ...


I recommend reading the TD report I linked to in another thread. 

In my daily news clippings, carbon taxes are being talked about much more openly now. It has been a long haul but people like Jaccard and now TD Bank are doing a great job at trying to get people comfortable with the idea. 

Whether people are getting comfortable is another matter. Whether politicians can keep their sticky fingers off 80%+ of the revenue is another matter too.

We could recycle carbon taxes through subsidised ATM fees, if that will make people happy. What about the other $29 billion? I say we recycle them through me. 

So what framework do you recommend? Toss out a series of inter-locking strategies as a straw man and we can discuss.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> :-(
> Sensitive when your theories are shot down? Sorry, no sacred cow theories and bowing and chanting to "conventional wisdom", GA. Have all the faith you want, just don't expect it to be taken as fact.


I'd say you're the one who seems sensitive, buddy. As I said any possible hint from an incomplete and general one sentence statement that proposes the oil industry was involved in anti-climate change propaganda receives immediate and swift condemnation from you. Actually any hint that a major corp of any kind could have done anything wrong seems to more often than not promote this knee-jerk response.

Now that all that Exxon-Mobil sponsored funding of junk science is ramping down you should be able to help them out with green-washing their past history. It'll look just like those beautiful Chevron ads that shows lovely painted forest scenes with butterflies and flowers published at the same time they were spending millions in court denying that they should pay anything for the Valdez incident.

Hopefully we can move forward without forgetting who was one of the biggest players standing in the way of progress. Sorry Beej, but they have been criminal in the past and for the most part got away with it and profited by it. I would suggest keeping a close watch on them in future would be a very good idea. They certainly havn't given anyone any reason to just trust them.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> any possible hint from an incomplete and general one sentence statement that proposes the oil industry was involved in anti-climate change propaganda receives immediate and swift condemnation from you. Actually any hint that a major corp of any kind could have done anything wrong seems to more often than not promote this knee-jerk response.
> 
> Now that all that Exxon-Mobil sponsored funding of junk science is ramping down you should be able to help them out with green-washing their past history. It'll look just like those beautiful Chevron ads that shows lovely painted forest scenes with butterflies and flowers published at the same time they were spending millions in court denying that they should pay anything for the Valdez incident.
> ...............................
> suggest keeping a close watch on them in future would be a very good idea. They certainly havn't given anyone any reason to just trust them.


Blah, blah, blah, complaining, sarcasm, etc.

Your statement was quite baseless, so I commented. Why the 50 year horizon and just one industry? For effect. Maybe a sparkly smiley would have worked well there.

If you'd said for many years, sure. Big players in the oil industry, sure. Were part of the propaganda, sure. But the 50-year single-attribution for all that ails is just chanting a religious belief. 

As I've said before, I can respect faith, but it ain't fact and I won't treat it as such.
...............................
I agree, and I don't trust businesses until I'm given reason. My dealings with certain energy companies have given me reason to not trust them. Same for many small businesses. Others I've had good dealings with. 

But that doesn't mean broad-brush moaning. If you think me pointing out the logical failing (given current evidence) has anything to do with me trusting them, then I'd like some of what you're smoking, because my cigarettes can't pull that off.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Beej are you denying that Exxon in particular wasn't spending money to cloud the climate change issue??  ?? sure sounds like it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Beej are you denying that Exxon in particular wasn't spending money to cloud the climate change issue??  ?? sure sounds like it.


Then read closer, because I'm not saying that.

"If you'd said for many years, sure. Big players in the oil industry, sure. Were part of the propaganda, sure. But the 50-year single-attribution for all that ails is just chanting a religious belief. "

Where did you get Exxon and a non-timeline specific claim of spending (instead of responsibility for mass inaction) from that? More "with or agin' us" is seems. If I point out the wrong logical errors (or omission of facts) then I'm agin'? Nope. That's been the point for quite a few posts.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Your statement was quite baseless


GA mentioned Exxon specifically - you made a blanket denial.

Yes it was qualified later in your post but overshadowed entirely by the "baseless" comment.

GA might have been over the top on it but it's not baseless which is what I reacted too.

•••

Hands off the revenue flow is indeed a concern. I'm still not trusting ANY of these clowns on the Hill to be "smart with the public funds" tho there are some signs of improvement all around.

I'm quite happy with a minority situation and all party oversight committees.

The car industry situation is tricky - I'd like to see Ontario or the Feds for that matter follow California's lead but Ontario is so Big Three dependent 

With a potential recession in the wind nothing would please me better than a comprehensive retrofit program - bit of carrot - bit of stick for older buildings.

Sort of like the drive clean program but for building/energy use. Devil in the details tho.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> GA mentioned Exxon specifically - you made a blanket denial.
> 
> Yes it was qualified later in your post but overshadowed entirely by the "baseless" comment.
> 
> ...


I understand where you're coming from but,

"Your statement was quite baseless, so I commented. Why the 50 year horizon and just one industry? For effect. Maybe a sparkly smiley would have worked well there."

Note the "so I commented" and question about a 50 year horizon. I don't think I need to preface everything with an explicit reference back to that post with such immediate references.
...........................
The Big Three claims are odd (lobbyist-wise, understandably). If Canada buys fewer of their stuff overtime, does that end them here? No. They don't just manufacture for Canada. Should we really care (if providing reasonable timelines)? No. Overseas manufacturers are expanding capacity here. We don't need to protect companies that don't understand obvious trends in their market. Reasonable timelines are key, but car design and manufacturing timelines are shorter than what other industries face.

Retrofit is extremely tricky due to expense and, for homes, income distribution (wealthy have the $$$). A tough part of policy. Low/zero-interest loan funds can work wonders. Toronto has such a program. Basically use the micro-credit approach.

Add $1B to the fund every year. Zero-interest for condo corps and public buildings. Low-interest for private sector. Fixed repayment (~15 years) makes them cost-effective instead of just chasing after the sexiest new technology. All loan repayments are recycled into the fund so it grows and, after a handful of years, you'd stop feeding new money into it. 

Have a side program targeted to landlords to force rental reductions alongside the loans. 

The important point for low-income is the landlord program and cash timing. No system of "your cheque is in the mail" will work for them, but accountability is needed. Not easy, but doable, in my opinion. There will be some abuse.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I agree on the cars tho my thinking if Ontario has strict fuel economy standards the Big Three may feel Ontario is not so friendly - that's where I'm coming from.
So when it comes to cutting jobs and plants........

On retrofit I;m not talking small dwellings - target only the multi-unit which is a huge number.
Let the home owners do the smaller units.

If Seimens and GE see the income potential on retrofits - the money is there.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> the Big Three may feel Ontario is not so friendly - that's where I'm coming from.
> So when it comes to cutting jobs and plants........
> .........................
> On retrofit I;m not talking small dwellings - target only the multi-unit which is a huge number.
> ...


So what? Using reasonable timeframes, their feelings are not relevant, they are businesses. The message is that they have time to adjust. California, Canada and other countries are going in this direction...they can figure out the rest. Whether or not the U.S. Big Three take advantage or the Japan Big Three or Korea etc. doesn't matter. Set reasonable timeframes and let the best business win.
.........................
Much of the current great building examples did require support and that probably won't change. I would like a well-designed program for it, buttressed by aggressive but well-signalled advances in minimum standards. Same for appliances, cars etc. Short-term carrots and sticks are nice, but long-term dedication will drive industry to innovate.

Gas example because, well... beejacon

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2007/07/c8021.html

An important thing to remember is that each individual move is not about zero-emissions. It's about the best way to reduce emissions, globally. If that means 100 people reducing emissions 10% instead of 1 person reducing 100%, then that is cost-effective. Set the target, push a little with minimum standards and pull a little with technology funding, but the bulk is done by the market.

Picture it as a normal distribution curve:

http://www.tushar-mehta.com/excel/charts/normal_distribution/

The left "tail" is pushed by regulating away certain things (e.g. incandescent light bulbs...I still have to think about that one).

The right "tail" is pulled by government accelerating leading edge technologies (not every pie-in-the-sky idea) through demonstrations and such. But, regardless, the market must move the bulk because no government has the resources to move it without the often claimed economic destruction. That's where the big framework comes into play. Other stuff is useful for pushing and pulling, but the big moves are market-based.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> Your statement was quite baseless, so I commented. Why the 50 year horizon and just one industry? For effect. Maybe a sparkly smiley would have worked well there.
> 
> If you'd said for many years, sure. Big players in the oil industry, sure. Were part of the propaganda, sure. But the 50-year single-attribution for all that ails is just chanting a religious belief.


It was a one-off one-line general statement, Beej. Jeez! I didn't want to write a paragraph, but if it makes you happy I'll qualify it to something more acceptable.

Original sentence: So it's actually taken half a century to overcome oil industry funded propaganda. That's pretty sad.

Revised to be thoroughly fair as requested by The Beej: So it's actually taken a good part of half a century to overcome the propaganda about climate change funded to a large degree — but not completely — by the oil industry, as well as other interested players. That's pretty sad.

If we parsed the output of ehMac to the same standards of exact language we would need an army of Beejes working 24/7 to police the place. It's a good thing you only seem to go after those who potentially tar the good name of corporations.  <— Note, winky guy.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> If we parsed the output of ehMac to the same standards of exact language we would need an army of Beejes working 24/7 to police the place.


It is posts like these that I look again at the avatar and think, oh yeah, now I understand.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It was a one-off one-line general statement, Beej. Jeez! I didn't want to write a paragraph, but if it makes you happy I'll qualify it to something more acceptable.
> ..........................
> If we parsed the output of ehMac to the same standards of exact language we would need an army of Beejes working 24/7 to police the place. It's a good thing you only seem to go after those who potentially tar the good name of corporations.  <— Note, winky guy.


It would have been quite easy to just say you didn't mean it to be taken seriously or as a fact right off the bat, instead of the complaining and sarcasm post you responded with. So there we went. 

"So it's actually taken a good part of half a century to overcome the propaganda about climate change funded to a large degree — but not completely — by the oil industry, as well as other interested players."

And where's the evidence of the half a century? Because it was mentioned that long ago in an educational video? MD has it being mentioned before 1900. I blame the light bulb industry and swing music writers for suppressing it all this time to keep society's lively consumptive ways dancing along. <-- If you challenge me on this truism, how will I respond? Spin the wheel, GA!

Again, the propaganda machine started when? I'm sorry to hold you to such unusual standards of not making stuff up, GA. Cry me a river. 

Call it a feeling without evidence, a religious belief, or provide some information about the early propaganda (early 60s?) on the topic. It may actually be out there, although I suspect they were busier spreading misinformation about air quality or the damage caused by leaded fuels. 
..........................
Exact or roughly accurate? Again, cry me a river. Your exact seems to be weak or you're just sitting on evidence for giggles or showmanship. Well, here's your chance.

As for who I defend, when the good name of eco-fascists, environuts and closet-marxists are smeared, I'll be there. beejacon


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I don't think it's a stretch to broad brush and say without government standards and inspections both air and water pollution would be far worse than they are now.

That "interesting observations" about green house gases has now transformed into a very serious threat to the ecosystem and economies/way of life is just one more chapter in the growth of human knowledge.

Since we have little idea of how extreme the climate swings will be and we are already experiencing economic damage- prudence says at least cap the growth asap.

That means in my mind outting those that minimize or ridicule the risk or seek to cloud the issue for economic reasons.

No one method of response will be perfect - many methods must be tried and tried soon.
If you know a flood is coming arguing about the method of building the dike is just stupid.

London/Britain has spent billions on the Gates just to keep safe from a 100 year storm that may never happen.

As with the coming energy shortages and water shortages it's going to take a vast number of different approaches to keep the ppm under 500 which many think MIGHT save our asses somewhat.

Even now the ghg levels are outside the interglacial range for the last million years.
That means we have no record to look back on to see the impact and there have have been major climate swings 5-6 degrees within a decade even when the levels ARE within the norms.

There are triggers that create these swings, we don't know what the triggers are yet. We may already have pulled one or more.

What's it going to take to make the hard choices NOW. 

While I'm encouraged by Alberta and the Cons apparent "change"...I'm just not convinced that it's driven by awareness of the real risks rather than mostly by public pressure.

When I read the stupidity that still gets circulated, and is mostly the result of the oil/coal industry's propaganda efforts in the past few years I just can't believe the harm it's done to an effort that will require enormous cooperation at all levels to be effective.

Right now we've got only marginally more people helping to build the dam than are attempting to tear it down.

What a way to run a planet.

••

GA at this point I think the barriers are political more than from industry pressures so I'd rather move forward on maximum effect solutions rather than pointing fingers to the past.

I'm very impressed with the TD approach - I reread it and I hope all levels of government look at it seriously.
It's a gutsy proposal and I would be proud of Canada if it was undertaken in short order.

If ever was a pragmatic call to arms - this is it.



> In a report released yesterday by the TD Bank, economists argued that industry and consumers would not change their behaviour as long as it's cheap to pollute. They advocate a policy that combines emissions regulations, taxes, subsidies and a trading system for emissions credits – a varied approach they say would mitigate the impact on the economy.
> 
> TD's chief economist Don Drummond said he's found it "bizarre" that the government and the business community haven't engaged in a more thorough public debate over such a major economic issue.
> 
> ...


I also liked the "trading in Canada" only aspect for offsets to encourage innovation here.

They have identified the heart of the matter in my mind.

If NL has to mine oil cleanly in the ocean..and has to pay to make sure it is clean...surely we can apply similar thinking to the atmosphere.

There are fines for littering too. From the smallest to the largest - applying the principle that pollution must be accounted for and paid for.....air or water.. is a terrific vision.

Solutions can flow from that overarching principle. Responsible government can be the conduit for this change by rewarding clean and taxing pollution.

Applied on a broad enough basis it will harm no one sector in any great way.

Be fun to generally visualize the impact on various categories.

ie a stiff pollution tax on powerboats would slow sales there but see a jump in sailing and clean power systems. Interim measures would be to entirely ban 2 strokes and offer a "trade in" to get older motors into the smelter for recycling.


I think the TD is right - there has to be more incentive for rapid change than just "feel good".


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> It would have been quite easy to just say you didn't mean it to be taken seriously or as a fact right off the bat, instead of the complaining and sarcasm post you responded with. So there we went.
> 
> "So it's actually taken a good part of half a century to overcome the propaganda about climate change funded to a large degree — but not completely — by the oil industry, as well as other interested players."
> 
> ...


Beej, you're just nit-picking for the sake of it. Whatever.

As some one who believes that human caused climate change is fact, you never seem to go after your ehMac compatriots on the right side of the political spectrum demanding footnotes for every junk science claim they make. As I said earlier we would need that army of Beejes working day and night.

Eco-fascists, environuts, closet-marxists it's so easy to say with your little icon next to it. Defend away, demand footnotes of all who open their mouths.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> I'm very impressed with the TD approach - I reread it and I hope all levels of government look at it seriously.


I'm sure. TD has no vested interest in these schemes, now do they?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Beej, you're just nit-picking for the sake of it. Whatever.
> 
> As some one who believes that human caused climate change is fact, you never seem to go after your ehMac compatriots on the right side of the political spectrum demanding footnotes for every junk science claim they make. As I said earlier we would need that army of Beejes working day and night.
> .........................
> Eco-fascists, environuts, closet-marxists it's so easy to say with your little icon next to it. Defend away, demand footnotes of all who open their mouths.


There is quite a big difference between 50 and 20 or 30, non? It's not like we're talking about a centuries timescale here (eg. circa 1500). But to heck with accuracy, I like a good yarn too. Especially one dressed up as a broad observation.

"never seem" indeed. First, MD seems to have the best handle on the science, not me. Second, I have commented on why buying foreign credits is not necessarily a bad thing, for example, and posted a link rebutting a "junk" article. I didn't need to make stuff up to do that. 

Third, looking for some "fair and balanced" approach, GA? Allocating time equally, as seen in the media climate change debate, for all critics doesn't get to a reasonable point. Same thing with the standard, "Big = bad" rhetoric, and various off-shoots, whereby anything can be attributed to the "bad" simply because it is understood as a bad. But, to do otherwise is nitpicking? 

Perhaps you could voluntarily reduce, to a reasonable level, your nits. Or just keep complaining about where I focus my attention. That's something too. 
.........................
"As for who I defend, when the good name of eco-fascists, environuts and closet-marxists are smeared, I'll be there. beejacon"

That could be taken a couple different ways, couldn't it? :heybaby:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Be fun to generally visualize the impact on various categories.


The wealth effect is quite challenging. 

This is not necessarily a bad thing, though. It just means we may need more time to transition in very high carbon taxes. It also means we'll need to keep our voter's guns pointed at the politicos who want to spend the money. 

In the end, there's no inherent justification for income taxes, rather they are used to pay for things that voters want. There is inherent justification for taxing pollution. The efficient solutions to this have been obvious for a while. A long while. It just takes time to bring people around. Some key advocates, here and there, help bring about curiosity in all new places.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070310.wxrpipeline10/BNStory/Business/home

The dots are being connected.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Time unfortunately is not a luxury the world has tho Canada perhaps does.
IF we got the GHG on oil sands production to the same level as say NL oil/gas extraction pollution level's I'd be less critical as at least we are then not being seen to benefit monetarily on the future suffering of others.

Right now oil and gas are necessities that will take time to replace - but extensively polluting for monetary gain on top of "enabling" the extravagance and slowing the push for change to less dependence and less climate change inducing energy sources really is an unacceptable double whammy.

Think about from say France's standpoint where they've invested billions in nuclear power and done much to lower vehicle GHG outputs only to see their vineyards..to take one small example.....soon to be untenable.
And that consequence was not of their making in the main.

If a neighbour's barbeque *habits* turned your carefully tended green backyard to a desert to be hyperbolic..there would be legal consequences and compensation due.

If a Canadian vessel discharged oily waste on the oyster beds in Ireland....consequences and compensation would be the expected course of events......and a cessation of such activity.

This in my mind is the heart of the TD proposal - you pollute.....you pay...large and small to offset some of the consequences and pay for the cost of cessation.

The time issue is the nasty part. Population will grow 50%, demand for energy will grow more than that. As Stern anticipates, money spent now ...will have positive impact as the consequences of biz as usual are....



> *Draft international climate report warns of droughts, starvation, disease*
> SETH BORENSTEIN
> Associated Press
> WASHINGTON — The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people won't have enough water, top scientists will say next month at a meeting in Belgium.
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070310.wclimatereport0310/BNStory/Front/home

grim reading....and this from the IPCC who are normally vanilla bland.

When I hear the collective "we can't afford it now"......say doing clean plants in either Alberta or Ontario......
my immediate reaction........."We can't afford not to...."
This IS a war footing scale problem and needs the same level of effort put out to deal with it as quickly as possible.



> This report — considered by some scientists the “emotional heart” of climate change research — focuses on how global warming alters the planet and life here, as opposed to the more science-focused report by the same group last month.
> 
> *“This is the story. This is the whole play. This is how it's going to affect people.* The science is one thing. *This is how it affects me, you and the person next door,”* said University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver.
> 
> *Many — not all — of those effects can be prevented, *the report says, if within a generation the world slows down its emissions of carbon dioxide and if the level of greenhouse gases sticking around in the atmosphere stabilizes. If that's the case, the report says “most major impacts on human welfare would be avoided; but some major impacts on ecosystems are likely to occur.”


The world faced a crisis in the 40's and that generation rose to the challenge even if it left states such as Britain penniless in doing so. Innovation and sacrifice were the hallmarks.
In my mind there is little difference in urgency of task and consequence of failure now as then.
Then - some nations sat it out, some were villians, some late to the cause - ALL were impacted and some sacrificed far more than others in that cause.

I'd hate Canada to be seen as a profiteer on future and present misery ...and right now....we are.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

I'm going to add this to the debate. It's a documentary from Channel 4 in the U.K.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You DO know who is behind that I assume?

These are same Friends of Science crowd now transformed into Ottawa's own NRSP.



> representatives of Friends of Science, Eric Loughead, and Dr. Douglas ... Dr. Ian Clark, Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa ...


funded by the Alberta Oil patch and now in Ottawa under a different name.



> Friends Of Science Critiques The Evidence For Man-Made Climate Change
> 
> In the run-up to the last federal election, a Calgary-based group called the Friends of Science Society aired 30-second radio spots which attacked the Kyoto Accord. The paid advertisements warned that the global warming agreement is scientifically unsound and economically destructive to Canada. The message reached 200,000 people in Ontario ridings where polls showed the Liberals had only a slight lead.
> 
> "There's no way to reliably assess how much influence our ads had," acknowledges Eric Loughead, the society's vice-president. After they were aired, however, the non-profit group's website received a surge of 300,000 visitors, and the Conservatives did win several of the targeted ridings.





> Clark and the NRSP
> Clark sits on the "scientific advisory board" of a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose it's funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. An Oct. 16, 2006 CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that "a confidentiality agreement doesn't allow him [Tom Harris] to say whether energy companies are funding his group."
> 
> Recently, DeSmog has discovered that the NRSP is controlled by energy industry lobbyists.





> Climate scientist 'duped to deny global warming'
> 
> Ben Goldacre and David Adam
> Sunday March 11, 2007
> ...


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

It's interesting he chooses WWII propaganda as a metaphor....how right he is.



> NRSP's Genealogy
> 
> The NRSP maintains it has no direct connection with the Calgary-based group of climate change skeptics the "Friends of Science" [5] (FoS), even though the FoS's most outspoken member, Tim Ball, is now the Chairman of the NRSP. With the exact same purpose and goals, and most of the same scientific allies and members as the Friends of Science, the NRSP is viewed by many as a reincarnation of the FoS, after the FoS was "outed" by The Globe and Mail newspaper in August 2006 as being partly funded by the oil and gas industry. [6].
> 
> ...


Voyager - comments???


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Voyager: Doc's showing you that "his link is bigger than yours" by quoting more than is decent in a public forum. What you may have failed to realize here is that any group that has ever been involved with money from any company that has had anything to do with oil or gas production is--(cue Doc's li'l ol' lady GASP!!)--tainted by *BIG* oil. Add to that any scientist who has ever worked with a grant from the oil and gas industry or worked in any sort of geotech field. One exception: If anyone from these groups says anything to support his gases, he bellows: *"SEE! At least they got this right!!!"*

Once you understand that you'll see the ol' hippy in a new light!

'bout right.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> This in my mind is the heart of the TD proposal - you pollute.....you pay...large and small to offset some of the consequences and pay for the cost of cessation.


That's the old polluter-pay principle that has been recommended for a while. Did TD recommend immediately implementing a $100/tonne tax? It will take time and it should take time. That doesn't mean we don't get started now and do it right. It just means not doing things that don't actually help or that are clearly against voters real intentions. Voters want something done, but not at any cost.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Voyager: Doc's showing you that "his link is bigger than yours" by quoting more than is decent in a public forum.


Agreed. Posting members to death with long winded dissertations that could easily be linked is a waste of bandwidth and consequently, I don't even bother to read them. Kinda a "get even for the length" tactic, if you will.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No question implementation is critical and just as with provincial/federal programs assymetrical I think is the better route where the golas and methods may differ in regions or even in industries.

It can be done with good heart and the intention to cooperate and make progress.

I'd like to see the financial institutions get involved in policy planning - mostof all I'd like to see action rather than talk. I still think the ATM fees to green fund program a good idea........a natural for TDs considering their corporate colours. 

Little to be done if it involves turf defending and denial as we see from the flat earthers. The level of flat out ignorance is simply appalling.
Having the NRSP clowns in anyway associated with Alberta, the Cons or the oilpatch gives lie to any "green washing" and simply undermines any credibility the province or the party or the industry is attempting to earn.

You are in the industry.....my sense is most know the score on the growing damage and that things are going change.......is this true??


•••
Just exposing the noisome critters under the rocks.

Fine company you've aligned yourself with their MF :clap: - and all you can do is grade 2 sniping. Better a grown hippie than stalling out at early grade school.

•••



> I don't even bother to read them


Certainly the best way to keep the head in the sand.....absolutely clear you don't read.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Certainly the best way to keep the head in the sand.....absolutely clear you don't read.


Oh, I read plenty MacDoc. 

Just not your brand of propaganda. I prefer my reading to come from neutral sources.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I see MaDoc is starting with the insults again. For him or agin' him. 

You have to choose or die with ol' Doc.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> You are in the industry.....my sense is most know the score on the growing damage and that things are going change.......is this true??


Most? Not in my opinion, but many key ones. Most will say the words, though. Ask them for numbers, targets and $$$ and find out. beejacon

The most common aged whine is about China and India. It's a way to advocate for next-to-nothing (just research) without saying you don't care.

There are also groups that don't care either way and just want to know the rules so they can plan. Still others are pushing harder (direct financial interest) to move forward. These are businesses and it's about their money. 

You can, with some exceptions, just line them up by their technology to know their approaches. That's why, when they get together to say something to government about Canada's energy industry (sidenote: we are not an energy superpower), they can't say much. They don't agree on much except lower taxes, streamlined regulation, R&D funding etc. 

Most, in my opinion, are just getting to the point where they can't deny the political power. They have been dragged kicking and screaming to the table. Team them up with useless politicians and groups that have no firm understanding of what it will take to dramatically reduce our emissions and you have all the makings of another inadequate Green Plan.

[Edit: Forgot to mention some of the louder manufacturing groups. Add them in to the mix for even slower results.]


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

If anyone wants to know what their politicians have heard:
http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteeList.aspx?Lang=1&PARLSES=391&JNT=0&SELID=e21_&COM=12396

Piles of dull reading, but they have been given all the information they need to come up something useful. We need to make sure they know we won't fall for gimmicky handouts and TV ads again. Then maybe they'll clue in.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Beej - I was actually hoping for a more encouraging response tho I suspected what you indicated was reality....lip service no heart in it.

Who ARE the key energy players that are working towards solutions in your view??

Do you think the Alberta gov has it's heart in it???
Certainly there are more "warm and fuzzies" being touted....but things like building a new coal plant without sequestering seems to belie that there is real intent to follow through.

•••••••
Sinc


> I prefer my reading to come from neutral sources


Excellent- I'd be most interested in hearing what those "neutral sources" are composed of?? Should be very enlightening. Let's hear your responsible neutral academically sound reading list.

••

MF that was one of the most hilarious face plants I've seen from you yet...how puerile....true to form at least....that would be Lower 1st form of course.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Who ARE the key energy players that are working towards solutions in your view??
> .................................
> Do you think the Alberta gov has it's heart in it???


They're individuals. Nothing comprehensive and rarely any details. We may see the council of CEOs come out with something interesting..maybe. This is why I found the TD report to be important. It was a new player for the advocacy efforts on real solutions. That means a new audience.

In the end, though, I don't see any "full" action from companies or associations except those that have a direct financial interest. Even then they're not doing much. Nuclear, wind and others should be doing more...maybe they're funding other stuff.

A lot of the most entrenched opposition is no longer energy. Some key manufacturers are taking the lead, so to speak.
.................................
No. I don't know Stelmach, though. All they need to do is connect the dots.

Two big dots:
New coal plant
Carbon grid
New coal plant
Carbon grid

Simpsons fans:
Lisa needs braces
Dental plan
Lisa needs braces
Dental plan

Albertans are much more environmentally aware than their government, but also defensive about Ottawa taking their wealth (rightly so). Two more big dots to connect (environment + DIY before the big O takes the money), and I think it will be sudden. Maybe before their election, maybe not.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That's a very good link to be able to hear from the industries themselves.



> Mr. Avrim Lazar (President and Chief Executive Officer, Forest Products Association of Canada):
> Thank you, and I thank the committee for allowing us to speak today. I know that you hear a lot of witnesses and that we must occasionally bore you, but I have to tell you that for us, it is really important to have a chance to be heard.
> 
> There's really only one policy issue we're facing, which is *how to address climate change and keep jobs in Canada. That's the debate, and no one is saying that we should do one or the other. We all agree that we have to do both*. We have to keep jobs in Canada, and we have to face climate change.


this is good reading and forceful



> Finally, on equivalency, we don't care who sets the standard if it's an intelligent standard, and we don't care who enforces it, but we don't want the province and the federal government coming and tromping all over our mills doing the same thing. So set a strong, intelligent federal regulatory machine and let the provinces enforce it. Let the provinces set the regime and the feds enforce it. We don't care, but let's not have both orders of government doing the same thing. When we say “equivalency”, we don't mean that you recognize every single standard set by a province.* If it's a federal standard, everybody has to meet it*, but it doesn't have to be enforced by federal regulators. It can be. We don't care who enforces it, but we don't want two sets of regulators tromping through our mills. One is quite enough. We'll meet the standards without having all those guests.


good summaries from this guy



> A system that has regulations without any accommodation for the need to retool, the need for capital, won't work. All it will do is drive businesses that are at the edge to China, and the greenhouse gases will come from there and the jobs will stay there. So we need a strong regulatory regime, but we need the regulatory regime together with a tax incentive system or some other incentive system that will make it easier for businesses to buy the equipment necessary to quickly retool.
> 
> Mr. Avrim Lazar (President and Chief Executive Officer, Forest Products Association of Canada):


http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/Committ...eId=196158&Lang=1&PARLSES=391&JNT=0&COM=12396

Set the standards fairly, ease the overhaul

This seems to fit with the TD vision



> A few last comments. On policy mechanisms, my view is that the central policy mechanism must be something that leaves people free to innovate, and that means a strong price signal.* I personally favour a carbon tax,* but cap and trade mechanisms and many other mechanisms are appropriate things to do. That has to be the number one thing to do.
> 
> Fundamentally, individuals in their homes and companies know better how to cut emissions than you folks around the table do. The role of government is to set the targets in the form of cap and trade, or taxes, not to tell people precisely how to do it. Nevertheless, for large, lumpy capital cost technologies like this, you will need specific incentives. They may not be specific monetary incentives, but some combination of monetary and regulatory incentives to make them happ


and from the same guy



> r. David Keith (Canada Research Chair in Energy and the Environment, Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering and Department of Economics, Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy, University of Calgary):
> Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to talk to you today. It's really a pleasure.
> 
> I'm going to start by giving you some general background on CO2 capture and storage. I'll give you a sense of what's changed, what's happened, and why people are talking about this seriously.
> ...


*Eliminate!!!!!*  that's as dramatic a phrase as exists.

Not cap, or reduce.....eliminate........

Still think the problem is overblown Sinc??? send him a note he's over reacting

*Dr. David Keith (Canada Research Chair in Energy and the Environment, Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering and Department of Economics, Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy, University of Calgary):*

here you go

[email protected]

ohh yeah....a key member of those purveyors of misinformation and gloom the IPCC



> Roughly half of his technical and policy work addresses the capture and storage of CO2, including work managing the risks of geologic storage and services as chair of a crosscutting group for the IPCC special report on CO2 storage.


Go ahead - tell him he and his colleagues at IPCC are over reacting and it's all just a scam and overblown nonsense ....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Forestry guys are playing their own game. They have huge cheap sink potential that may or may not require much work and are already moving towards biomass to save money. Again, the industries line up pretty much along technology lines. 

Keith's transcript was quite funny. It brightened my day at the office. Witnesses, unless an MP themselves, rarely go after the MPs, but Keith did:
..........
Mr. David McGuinty:
Dr. Keith, you're a Canada research chair. Out of curiosity, when was the Canada research chairs program created?

Dr. David Keith:
I have no idea, sorry.

Mr. David McGuinty:
When were you named a Canada research chair?

Dr. David Keith:
About two and a half years ago.

Mr. David McGuinty:
That's a process, Dr. Keith, that the former opposition opposed, by the way. You should know they actually opposed the creation of research chairs.

Dr. David Keith:
This really sounds like a pretty political comment, and it's off topic. Sorry to be blunt, but let's get to it.

Mr. David McGuinty:
Just so you know that your work and Dr. David Boyd's work, and others.... But let me get to the point here—

Dr. David Keith:
I'm well aware of that. This is the kind of grandstanding that is the reason we're not having policy in Canada. I'm sorry to be that blunt.

Mr. David McGuinty:
Well, you're actually being a little too forward, sir.
................................



I would have liked to see that. These a**holes needed to stop playing their games and listen to experts.

Also, the "essentially" means not entirely. However, with a figure of 60%-80% below 1990 levels used before seeing the extent of China and India's boom, it's pretty close...essentially.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Voyager: Doc's showing you that "his link is bigger than yours" by quoting more than is decent in a public forum. What you may have failed to realize here is that any group that has ever been involved with money from any company that has had anything to do with oil or gas production is--(cue Doc's li'l ol' lady GASP!!)--tainted by *BIG* oil. Add to that any scientist who has ever worked with a grant from the oil and gas industry or worked in any sort of geotech field. One exception: If anyone from these groups says anything to support his gases, he bellows: *"SEE! At least they got this right!!!"*
> 
> Once you understand that you'll see the ol' hippy in a new light!
> 
> 'bout right.


Actually, it's about the response I expected. I get the sense that the global warming movement has taken on an evangelical mantle that is divided into "true believers" and "heritics". And using "prophets" like Al Gore, who spend upwards of $30 000.00 per year on the heating and lighting of one of his mansions, while telling the rest of us to cut our own CO2 emissions borders on the hilarious.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What you're seeing in many cases is posturing. Industry, energy producers, manufacturing groups, etc. can see that the population will to some degree demand a bread and circuses approach to so-called climate change (a windmill--YES--a giant windmill!).

At the exact point necessary (they're very good at this) they will leverage themselves to some point where they will extract the greatest amount of money from government (the people) and people (the people) to maximize their profits and pay lip service to whatever faddish notion is going down.

It really is about maximizing profits (always has been). The type of debate going on here is of no consequence to them. They would laugh at it. Timing is everything.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Voyager said:


> And using "prophets" like Al Gore, who spend upwards of $30 000.00 per year on the heating and lighting of one of his mansions, while telling the rest of us to cut our own CO2 emissions borders on the hilarious.


Gore buys carbon offsets from a company he is part-owner of to "negate" his carbon emissions. Sweet!!

If you don't think much of this is about income redistribution, think again. Industry will come on board to distribute as much of it their way as possible. The rich will be able to afford living the life we're all accustomed to today, because only _they_ will be able to afford the "offsets." It's like a papal indulgence. Think of the new environmentalism as a rigidly controlled society in the mold of Medieval Catholicism.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Gore buys carbon offsets from a company he is part-owner of to "negate" his carbon emissions. Sweet!!
> 
> If you don't think much of this is about income redistribution, think again. Industry will come on board to distribute as much of it their way as possible. The rich will be able to afford living the life we're all accustomed to today, because only _they_ will be able to afford the "offsets." It's like a papal indulgence. Think of the new environmentalism as a rigidly controlled society in the mold of Medieval Catholicism.


That pretty much sums it up.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MF: It isn't as expensive as you put it and that's where the all important "recycling" or "tax shifting" comes in. When the Goracle pays $10k in carbon taxes, sticky fingers grab $2k and the rest can go back to everyone else. I think in Germany they managed a 10% rate of sticky vs money into social security. It can be done.

Sort of like GST. It may be a regressive tax, but it takes very little in the way of a transfer (such as the GST credit) to fix that. If the rich want to buy massive mansions and SUVs, heated patios and hot tubs, the rest can get more money from them.

With a carbon tax, smile and wave at the big SUV driver. He just bought you lunch.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> With a carbon tax, smile and wave at the big SUV driver. He just bought you lunch.


If, as a middle class member of society, I imagine an SUV to be the pinnacle of my desires, I would no longer be able to afford it. All luxury items that emit carbon dioxide--larger homes, larger cars, etc.....would now be available only to the rich. The SUV driver would buy me lunch and I would get onto the (artificially supported and cramped) public transit so I could eat it in my new Euro-style cramped row house. 

Besides, I believe in flat taxes anyway. I just never saw the sense in punishing achievement.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The SUVer is paying to pollute your share of the environment.

An example of cost:
The difference to clean up powergen through renewables, sequestration, etc. is commonly estimated at 2 cents per kwh to 4 cents. I consider 2 optimistic, but 4-5 cents should be workable (not zero emissions; still use fossil fuels for power quality issues). Note, this isn't with solar, which is still quite expensive. 

For your average consumer, that's about the price difference between Manitoba and Ontario. Some U.S. states may be double ON's, for a typical residential customer. Now, I don't live in MB anymore but they don't exactly live Big and Rich (sidenote: good song) relative to others. And New Yorkers aren't exactly living a peasant lifestyle relative to Ontario (quite a bit richer by many measures).

For vehicles, higher efficiency is cheaper until you get into hybrid technologies. Biofuels will also be put into the mix and electric commuter-cars will very likely arrive. It won't actually be that big a deal. Some countries even manage to survive outside of caves with $2/litre gasoline! 

The technology is there to affordably get a lot done. Not the "essentially zero" yet, but we can go a long way with known and near-commercial technology while we research the rest.

It's simply a matter of choice. If you want more fuel, you'll give up something else. The same choice people face now, just tilted differently. Heck, the choice now is already tilted very differently than 1999 (cheaper energy). And I still don't feel Catholic.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> The SUVer is paying to pollute your share of the environment.


The money will not go to cleaning it up. It will go to some vague sense that the rich are paying (for something undefineable). Also, I don't consider the CO2 portion to be pollution in the sense that I do noxious chemicals.



> The same choice people face now, just tilted differently.


This is opti-Beej talking again. Create the mechanism, and others will grab the pump handle--and begin pumping like maniacs.

I favour a complete removal of specialized taxes on automobile fuel. The relationship between gas taxes and road building and maintenance is non-existent. so even up the revenue stream by rolling former gas taxes into provincial and federal sales taxes. 

Use gasoline like it was going out of style. When the price of gas becomes so high as to threaten car sales significantly, new technologies will be developed. Or we will stop driving so much. There's only so much fuel available anyway--remember, it's all supposed to be gone in 80 years or so. It will all be burned in the next two centuries, one way or another, regardless of how heavily it is taxed.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I'm optimistic if we can threaten politicians. 

An established and credible carbon tax profile (say +$5 per year, start at $15) would unleash huge research and efficiency gains. People love to save money on things and brag about it. Businesses need to do that to compete. As for the rich, well, if you take all the carbon taxes and evenly redistribute, the poor would end up with more money...plus huge incentive to reduce emissions and keep the extra money (specific loan programs would be best to help). Again, that requires threatening politicians to keep their hands off the money.

Similar things have been done many times for other environmental pursuits, and they work fine. Some early problems occur and can be fixed. They work because they make sense: they are based on really basic economics -- polluter pay (externality cost). Not doing them is, in fact, warping markets.

A deeper geopolitical problem is that, in the end, the market value of economic pain in some places is much lower than in others and there are huge gains to trying to free-ride on other's taxes. Not easy. I recommend that everybody hire more economists. beejacon


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=SEO56275

What's not to like about a public policy issue that involves burning poop and worrying over livestock belches?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Global Warming protest called off due to cold temperatures!



> Frostbite ends Bancroft-Arnesen trek
> 2007/3
> 
> By PATRICK CONDON, Associated Press Writer Tue Mar 13, 6:08 PM ET
> ...


They were apparently intending to *SWIM* their way to the Pole in the supposed rivulets caused by global warming!



http://www.newsone.ca/westfallweeklynews/ViewArticle.aspx?id=75333&source=2


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

And this conclusion:



> "My first reaction when they called to say there were calling it off was that they just sounded really, really cold," {said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition.]
> 
> ...Atwood said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures.
> 
> "They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Large investors to urge climate policy
> 
> Will press Congress for clear framework
> Mar 17, 2007 04:30 AM
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/192975

Fancy that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sure they support it. It's a great way to increase the price of what they sell and to pass other costs to the consumers. 

They're champing at the bit to find some way to legitimize the profits they want to make and are hoping to get the green light from Congress.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> In New Hampshire, Towns Put Climate on the Agenda
> 
> 
> By KATIE ZEZIMA
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/us/19climate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> The last time voters in New Hampshire focused on a global issue at such meetings was in 1983, when more than 100 towns asked that the federal government do something about acid rain, which was polluting the state’s waterways.


Wait, don't tell me, the acid rain magically disappeared?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> Doug Garland, a selectman in Bartlett, N.H., who owns a snowshoeing and cross-country skiing area, supports a resolution on climate change being considered at town meetings across the state. “We like to get snow,” Mr. Garland said.


One of the dangers of Democracy I suppose. This bright fellow thinks the government will bring him snow. The Sierra Club has been moving from town to town scaring people, then pushing for immediate votes.

This from an editorial in the Concord, NH Monitor--to show you the depth of understanding of a campaign engineered by the Sierra Club:



> More mosquito-borne illness, more crop pests and diseases and more ticks and chiggers are on the way.
> 
> Climatologists also think we might be in for unpleasant surprises. As oceans warm and icecaps melt, sea levels will rise. Even conservative projections envision a one- to three-foot rise in sea level before the end of this century. If the Greenland icecap alone melts (and it has started melting), sea levels will rise 22 feet....
> 
> ...


Let's all convert to wood burning stoves. That ought to do it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I read a little more on this and one of the deals here is that in February a conference called Climate Change & Working Forests held in NH had indicated that growing more large hardwood forests (and cutting the timber) would be perceived as a major step toward returning the climate to its pristine stability, while creating lumber industry jobs. I'm all for planting more trees.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Sydney: from spectacular to uninhabitable
> 
> Doomsday reports are flooding Australia. They could be correct, says nicholas shakespeare
> Within less than the span of a lifetime, Sydney could resemble a desert town like Alice Springs, or even the apocalyptic landscape from Cormac McCarthy's new novel, The Road.
> ...


http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=1395

Hmmm maybe Mel was prescient.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

:yawn: 

Yet more fear mongering. It gets rather tiring. It's cyclical you know.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Great heavens! A drought!


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

SINC said:


> Wait, don't tell me, the acid rain magically disappeared?


No.... the US passed the Clean Air Act of 1990, and total sulphur emissions (mainly from powerplant from smokestacks, but also from diesel and gasoline car exhauts) were reduced by 38% from 1980 to 2003, and Nitrogen Oxides were reduced substantially (more than targetted), even though population and demand grew.

EPA Report

"the electric power industry achieved nearly 100 percent compliance with Acid Rain Program requirements — only 1 unit had emissions exceeding the SO2 allowances that it held and no units were out of compliance with the NOX program. This exceptionally high level of compliance was, in part, achieved as a result of the Acid Rain Program’s continued provision of accurate and complete SO2 and NOX emissions data. This process was augmented by a substantial auditing effort and accountability through rigorous, yet streamlined, reporting systems."

This is an example of a government programme that, through a combination of incentive, penalty, and mandatory targets, worked. Cars became cleaner, powerplants installed scrubbers, diesel fuels and gasonline are purer now than in 1980

And the results are showing in the environment: 

" Over the last decade:
* Ambient SO2 and sulfate levels are down more than 40 percent and 30 percent, respectively, in the eastern U.S.
* Wet sulfate deposition, which acidifies sensitive lakes, streams and forest soils, has decreased 39 percent in the northeastern U.S. and 17 percent in the southeastern U.S. (See Figure 3)
* Some modest reductions in inorganic nitrogen deposition and wet nitrate concentrations have occurred in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions, but other areas have not shown much improvement.
* Signs of recovery in acidified lakes and streams are evident in the Adirondacks, the northern Appalachian Plateau, and the upper Midwest. These signs include lower concentrations of sulfates, nitrates, and improvements in acid neutralizing capacity. _Response of surface water chemistry to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990._"


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That was a success as was the Montreal Protocol ......against all odds.

This is a good read for anyone who can be bothered



> Testimony of
> The Honorable Richard E. Benedick,
> Ambassador, ret.
> United States Senate
> ...


http://www.lawrencehallofscience.org/gss/uptodate/articles-gss/benedick.html

That there are UV warnings even now and a far greater need for sunscreen should be a reminder of how close we came to disaster.



> Perhaps most significant of all, during the negotiations the arguments for controlling CFCs rested on unproven scientific theories that these chemicals could damage the stratospheric ozone layer that protects life on earth from harmful solar radiation. The science remained speculative, based on projections from still-evolving computer models of imperfectly understood atmospheric processes - models that yielded varying, sometimes contradictory predictions each time that they were refined.
> 
> Despite the significant growth in emissions of CFCs, thirty years of recorded measurements had not demonstrated any statistically meaningful ozone depletion over mid-latitudes. The models did not even predict significant global depletion, at existing levels of emissions, for at least the next twenty years. Moreover, not only was there no evidence of increased levels of dangerous radiation reaching earth's surface, but such measurements as existed actually showed reduced radiation. During the negotiations, the seasonal "ozone hole" over Antarctica, while alarming, was considered by most scientists to be an anomaly, since it did not conform to the theoretical ozone depletion models and could possibly have had other than anthropogenic causes.
> 
> ...


We have not entirely dodged that and there is some case that global warming will make the ozone situation far worse opening seasonal holes in highly populated areas.



> "The patient hasn't recovered," said Hoffman, who heads NOAA's global atmospheric monitoring program. "But it's not getting any sicker. We really have not seen any recovery in Antarctica," he said.
> 
> Hoffman also predicted it would take until 2060 for the ozone layer to heal completely, provided humans stop all release of man-made substances containing chlorine or bromine.
> 
> ...


http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=107957&org=NSF

I'd like Canada to be leading once again instead of being the sulky footdragger we are now..

There is a nasty connection with ozone and C02 release



> It seems that the same gases responsible for the "greenhouse effect" - claimed by many scientists to be gradually warming the Earth - are simultaneously making the stratosphere cooler.
> 
> The main greenhouse culprit is carbon dioxide, largely created by the burning of fossil fuels.
> 
> ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/656014.stm

Montreal Protocol says nations can achieve good results despite some economic costs and work together to do so as they did with acid rain.

C02 contribution to the ozone hole issue is just ONE MORE reason to get on with decarbonizing our energy use.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I will give them this--at least the Acid Rain Coalition dissolved its own organization after the problem had been solved.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well I would be pleased to recommend the same course of action for the decarbonization crew.

A great great grandfather clause perhaps.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

And now back to our regularly scheduled program



> Bill to Ban Regular Light Bulbs Introduced in House
> By Nathan Burchfiel
> CNSNews.com Staff Writer
> March 21, 2007
> ...


http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200703/NAT20070321a.html


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*News Flash!*

I am watching a TV documentary on the Oasis channel in HD about Greenland.

They noted early in the program during a re-enactment of Eric The Red's landing there in 968 AD the temperature of the earth was +4C higher than it is today.

I've been watching for 25 minutes now and have yet to see a smoke stack, oil sands activity or any SUVs in their historical presentation. I going to stick like glue to the TV though to get to the bottom of this. I mean if the temperature was that much warmer, it was hotter then than now as far as global warming goes.

I bet the oil sands, smoke stacks and SUVs will show up any time now.

I'll keep you GHGers posted on the outcome.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Well, I'm sad to report the program is over and not one smoke stack, SUV or any oil sands either. Seems to me that's proof positive we can eliminate them from current causes of GHGs.

Now what?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SUV = Some Ugly Vikings?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Seems to me that's proof positive we can eliminate them from current causes of GHGs.


Nope. The scientists that you choose to ignore through the assumption that humans cannot affect climate are fully aware that climate does and has changed on its own as well as, with a high likelihood, due to our actions. Just because something happens naturally does not mean that it cannot also be caused by humans (philosophically, as part of nature, also natural?). 

Forest fires happen naturally too. Would anyone assume that humans cannot cause forest fires simply because they occur naturally?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That would be "proof" for you wouldn't it?? 

Avalanches occur for a variety of reasons too. There are other climate change forcing mechanisms including the sun. Unfortunately for the flat earth society - the sun is not in play right now.
http://www.physorg.com/news615.html

Right now it's GHGs produced by humans that is triggering the bulk of the changes. What other positive or negative feedback mechanisms THAT lights off is still being determined, and how big and how fast.

It's complex - something flat earthers seem to have trouble with.

Let's see - Sinc's "proof" versus the considered opinion of Prof. Sami K. Solanki, solar physicist and director at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research. 

Now which one might people have confidence in?

The sun has a role - it's ONE forcing mechanism.
GHG is another.



> Two scientists from the MPI for Solar System Research have calculated for the last 150 years the Sun’s main parameters affecting climate, using current measurements and the newest models: the total radiation, the ultraviolet output, and the Sun’s magnetic field (which modulates the cosmic ray intensity).* They come to the conclusion that the variations on the Sun run parallel to climate changes for most of that time, indicating that the Sun has indeed influenced the climate in the past.* Just how large this influence is, is subject to further investigation. However, it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period.* This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming. *
> 
> These findings bring the question as to what is the connection between variations in solar activity and the terrestrial climate into the focal point of current research. The influence of the Sun on the Earth is seen increasingly as one cause of the observed global warming since 1900, along with the emission of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from the combustion of coal, gas, and oil. "Just how large this role is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, *the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide," says Prof. Sami K. Solanki, solar physicist and director at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research.*


THIS particular climate avalanche is being set off by us.
Orbit, precession, wobble, vulcanism, sun activity, plate tectonics have set off others.


THe GOOD thing about the sun connection - it just might offset the GHG forcing.



> Global warming: Will the Sun come to our rescue?
> 
> 18 September 2006
> Stuart Clark
> ...


Bottom line - we might get a bit of a break and more time to decarbonizie for ALL the good reasons.


Get it now........??? 

Just pitch that sunscreen......'nother myth.

Written Dr. Keith yet??


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> It's complex - something flat earthers seem to have trouble with.


Is this like the person in another topic who equated a sharp increase in cell phone use with declining accident rates? A very complex relationship indeed...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Typical - can't read....or more correctly can't comprehend.

There is no spike in accidents despite the enormous increase in cell phone usage.
In fact accidents are down.
We can never know what accidents were prevented.

No observable correlation between increased accident rate and cell phone use
*Impossible to ascertain* any impact of increased cell usage on decreased accident rate. 
I'm* denying* any attribution to a decrease in accident rate by increased cell usage despite the fact there is an observable inverse correlation.
There are many other reasons for decreased accident rates over the period.

Your Grade 4 primer not quite up to snuff on the comprehension aspect??

•••

Once more - no defence of your flat earth stance - just misdirection and irrelevancy.

••

Your gov "disinformation" counterparts were busy in March



> *Climate report 'was watered down'*
> 
> 08 March 2007
> Fred Pearce
> ...


http://environment.newscientist.com...5943.900-climate-report-was-watered-down.html


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Typical MacDoc response--anger and insult.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Rather a correction of a foolish and unsupported statement which in your case is the norm.

Now anything on topic you have to add??

••••



> Movies map global greenhouse gas movement
> 17:00 21 March 2007
> NewScientist.com news service
> Fred Pearce
> ...


http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=153247#153247

Consequences of the Amazon "flipping" from sink to net positive emitter is one of the major positive feedback risks under study.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If we could harness that anger, we would be de-carbonized in no time.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Since posting reams of information to illustrate one’s point has become the norm here, I though I could respond in kind:

*The Absurdity Of Trying To Control Climate* 

Environmental activists are increasing the heat on policy makers worldwide to do something about global warming before it is too late. They charge that human activity is already warming the planet—yet the climate is not cooperating. Thus far, 1996 has been a cool year. Much of the East coast experienced record snowfalls this winter, and May was the sixth consecutive month of temperatures below seasonal norms, according to global satellite measurements.
Only several months ago the British Meteorological Office reported that 1995 was the hottest year on record, edging out 1990 by a bare 0.07 degrees F. Environmental activists proclaimed the announcement as further evidence that human-induced global warming had arrived.
Yet all was not right with the data. The designation of 1995 as the "warmest year on record" was based on incomplete measurements. As readings for only the first 11 months of the year were available, the British scientists estimated December temperatures. The excluded data revealed a record, end-of-year nose dive throughout the Northern Hemisphere. The complete data set for 1995 gathered from satellite readings revealed a thoroughly average year —only the eighth warmest since the satellites began taking climate measurements.
Most global warming predictions are based on general circulation models (GCMs), immensely complex computer simulations. Environmentalists tend to put a lot of faith in the predictive capacity of the computers. Others suggest that the model projections are hooey. Dr. Richard Lindzen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology compares model output to predictions from a ouija board, and with some cause. According to the models, the earth should be significantly warmer than it is.
Climate computer programmers have had a difficult time including all of the myriad variables that affect the climate, such as clouds and precipitation. One problem of existing models, for instance, is that they are unable to replicate weather fronts. Recent scientific evidence suggests that models do not sufficiently account for the impact of the sun either. Several recent studies have suggested a possible correlation between temperature trends and solar cycles. As Science magazine reported, "the sun could have been responsible for as much as half of the warming of the past century. If so, the role of greenhouse gases... would dwindle—as would estimates of how much they will warm climate in the future as they continue to build up."
As the computer models have become more accurate, their predictions have become less severe. For instance, the latest models have sought to incorporate the potential cooling effect of industrial emissions. The result is the lowest projected temperature change generated by a computer model to date. The model upon which the most recent UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report is based predicts a warming of 0.8 to 3.5 degrees centigrade by the year 2100. This is significantly less warming than has been predicted in the past. Indeed, the lower-bound warming estimate is approximately half that predicted just four years ago.
It is certainly possible that human activity will contribute to a warming of the planet. Yet this fact, of itself, is no cause for alarm. How warming would occur is immensely important. Scorching summers, produced by an increase in daytime highs, would have far different effects on human and other life than a wintertime warming that occurs mostly at night. Where the warming is concentrated is also a real concern, as is what effect warming has upon precipitation. Whether environmentalists choose to accept it or not, there are many indications that a warmer world would be far more benign than previously imagined. Some research even suggests that a moderately warmer climate would be a far better one for humanity.
The real question facing the world's people is not "is warming real?" but "what, if anything, should be done about it?" Future events will always be indeterminate, and given the magnitude of human activity, this means there will be uncertainty about the impacts of civilization. Natural disasters will strike randomly whether modern industrial society warms the earth or not. Even the most sophisticated computers will be forever unable to forecast future events with anything approaching certitude. What then is the proper policy response to uncertainty?
By all estimates, only incredibly severe reductions in global carbon dioxide emissions—on the order of 60 percent or more — will alter the computer forecasts. The resulting economic dislocations would be tremendous, potentially outweighing the negative impacts of even the most apocalyptic warming scenario. Global warming may pose uncertain risks, but the risks of global warming policies is clear.
The arguments for dramatic greenhouse gas reductions are all variants of the precautionary principle, essentially that it is better to be safe than be sorry. If only it were that simple. It is true that economic growth and technological advance pose environmental risks. But stagnation is hardly a safer course. In the words of the late Aaron Wildavsky:
"the results of doing too much can be as disastrous as doing too little."

**********

*The Myth Of Global Warming*

Green groups such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and Earth First are using their influence to persuade people that an environmental disaster of historic proportions is just around the corner. As Barbara Mass of the Pan African Conservation Group succinctly puts it: "I think we're going to drown in our own muck."
Environmentalist thinking is now widely accepted in the West. However, many scientists argue that what the Greens say about global warming and pollution is wrong. Professor Wilfred Beckerman, a former member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, was himself an enthusiastic environmentalist until he started examining the facts. He told Against Nature: "Within a few months of looking at the statistical data, I realised that most of my concerns about the environment were based on false information and scare stories."
According to Piers Corbyn, Director of Weather Action, many scientists do not accept the idea that pollution is causing global warming. Environmentalists claim that world temperatures have risen one degree Fahrenheit in the past century, but Corbyn points out that the period they take as their starting point — around 1880 — was colder than average. What's more, the timing of temperature changes does not appear to support the theory of global warming. Most of the rise came before 1940 —before human-caused emissions of 'greenhouse' gases became significant.
According to the Greens, during the post-war boom global warming should have pushed temperatures up. But the opposite happened. "As a matter of the fact, the decrease in temperature, which was very noticeable in the 60s and 70s, led many people to fear that we would be going into another ice age," remembers Fred Singer, former Chief Scientist with the US Weather Program.
Even in recent times, the temperature has not behaved as it should according to global warming theory. Over the last eight years, temperature in the southern hemisphere has actually been falling. Moreover, says Piers Corbyn, "When proper satellite measurements are done of world temperatures, they do not show any increase whatsoever over the last 20 years."
But Greens refuse to accept they have could have been proved wrong. Now they say global warming can involve temperature going both up and down.
"Global warming is above all global climatic destabilisation," says Edward Goldsmith, editor of the Ecologist, "with extremes of cold and heat when you don't expect it. You can't predict climate any more. You get terrible droughts in certain cases; sometimes you get downpours. In Egypt, I think, they had a rainfall for the first time in history — they suddenly had an incredible downpour. Water pouring down in places where it's never rained before. And then you get droughts in another area. So it's going to be extremely unpredictable."
Scientists also point out that nature produces far more greenhouse gases than we do. For example, when the Mount Pinatubo volcano erupted, within just a few hours it had thrown into the atmosphere 30 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide— almost twice as much as all the factories, power plants and cars in the United States do in a whole year. Oceans emit 90 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, every year. Decaying plants throw up another 90 billion tonnes, compared to just six billion tonnes a year from humans.
What's more, 100 million years ago, there was six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then was marginally cooler than it is today. Many scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide doesn't even affect climate.
Although many environmentalists have been forced to accept much of the scientific evidence against global warming, they still argue that it is better to be safe than sorry. So they continue to use global warming as a reason to oppose industrialisation and economic growth.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Typical - can't read....or more correctly can't comprehend.
> 
> There is no spike in accidents despite the enormous increase in cell phone usage.
> In fact accidents are down.
> ...


Observable correlation: results were posted, you chose to ignore, as per the usual denier/flat-earther approach, MD. 

Looking at the total accident rate: as I mentioned, relying on that is bad analysis. Many other factors in there, like my life expectancy comparison. You seem to acknowledge this but cling to it nonetheless. You still ignore studies that directly link cellphone use to increased accident likelihood, as per the denier/flat-earther approach.

And you still cling to this "accidents" prevented thing like people shouldn't pull over to report them and as a vague offset. You're denial on this one tells more of how you religiously stick to your theories and pick and choose when to use science.

You need a Grade 4 primer, MD. Heal thyself.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> It is certainly possible that human activity will contribute to a warming of the planet.


Do you agree with this excerpt?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Observable correlation: results were posted, you chose to ignore, as per the usual denier/flat-earther approach, MD.
> 
> Looking at the total accident rate: as I mentioned, relying on that is bad analysis. Many other factors in there, like my life expectancy comparison. You still ignore studies that directly link cellphone use to increased accident likelihood, as per the denier/flat-earther approach.
> 
> ...


:clap: :clap: Exactly. He's right, we're wrong, all the time. One gets sick of the self-righeous, overbearing know-it-all posturing.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I wouldn't mind it as much, Sinc, if he didn't so obviously use science and analytical depth as a flag-of-convenience for belief. Of course the VOLUME would still be an irritant.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Do you agree with this excerpt?


Possible? Anything is possible in future.

As for the past and present, no. We cannot control, nor influence the climate or its cycles. I mean think about it. Rainmakers could have made a fortune by now.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Show me the real world correlation study with rising cellphone use and rising accident rate. It's not there, and you know it. The research shows it "could be there" - it's not.
It's just one of many potential distractions in driving - you can't legislate common sense.
HOLDING a cell phone is clearly an issue and I support handsfree legislation entirely making it mandatory.

I'm more that willing to defend my position on it - you just carp and try and diss the messenger on climate change.

if you have something substantive to contribute by all means - what you accomplish as someone else rightly put it is to look foolish.
••

Climate action
It has nothing to do with sky daddy belief as you'd like to make the association when you can't come up with a defensible position.

If you don't like the "volume" - change the channel - if you have something to contribute - by all means do so.



> What is the IPCC?
> 
> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) brings together hundreds of the world’s leading scientists to study the impact of human activities on the Earth’s climate, the associated environmental consequences of climate change, the socioeconomic impacts and implications, and response strategies. The Panel actively conveys its findings to policy-makers through its Assessment Reports.
> 
> Established in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the IPCC is open to all members of the UN and WMO. Its scientific reports are prepared by the world’s leading scientists and subjected to extensive peer and public review. IPCC’s Summaries for Policymakers are jointly agreed to by the scientific lead authors and the participating nations (typically well over 100 of the UN’s member states). Over the course of its three assessments,* the IPCC reports have been unanimously agreed upon by the more than 150 countries involved, and later endorsed by the academies of science of all the major nations.*


http://www.unfoundation.org/ipccinfo/

Where the skepticism is very aptly applied is in the watering down of the reports by govs too chicken**** to get on with making needed tough choices. Europe at least is moving there. Harper indeed is making the right noise about "world leader" for Canada.......noise isn't action tho.

Decarbonization is in play now......despite the nonsense and "doubt" campaigns waged by those that don't wish to undertake "polluter pays".

Written Dr. Keith yet??
You should really get on the University's case for hiring such a clearly deluded person that would call for "elimination" of carbon emissions.

Beetter warn Parliament not to listen to him either.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Written Dr. Keith yet??


You keep tossing this into recent threads. I for one, have never heard of him. Who is this guy and what particular aspect of your religion does he preach?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Shh, SINC! Please be quiet or "Dr. Keith" will hear you.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Show me the real world correlation study with rising cellphone use and rising accident rate. It's not there, and you know it. The research shows it "could be there" - it's not.
> It's just one of many potential distractions in driving - you can't legislate common sense.
> HOLDING a cell phone is clearly an issue and I support handsfree legislation entirely making it mandatory.
> 
> ...


You are, of course, asking for a "rainmaker" MD. Standard denier. 

Why require a rising overall accident rate when cellphone use is only a component? Like trying to prove fast foods are bad for you by looking at overall life expectancy. Intentionally bad analytics to maintain the denial. You're being too transparent, MD. 

The real studies (that you choose to ignore to maintain denial) show little benefit to handsfree, relative to handheld, and a roughly 3 or 4-fold increase in accident likelihood with cellphone use. And you still deny.

Your hypocrisy on this one is quite obvious.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> You are, of course, asking for a "rainmaker" MD. Standard denier.
> 
> Why require a rising overall accident rate when cellphone use is only a component? Like trying to prove fast foods are bad for you by looking at overall life expectancy. Intentionally bad analytics to maintain the denial. You're being too transparent, MD.
> 
> ...


This will without doubt fall on deaf ears where MacDoc is concerned, but he is flat out wrong:

*First study of its kind*
The study, which ran in the British Medical Journal, is the first of its type to use actual crash data and cell phone records to correlate serious vehicular accident injuries with talking on the telephone. Further, the results show that the same risks are posed whether holding a phone to your ear or talking through a hands-free devise such as a speakerphone.

*Consistency across groups of drivers*
"The main finding of a fourfold increase in injury crash risk was consistent across groups of drivers," says Anne McCartt, IIHS vice president for research and an author of the study. "Male and female drivers experienced about the same increase in risk from using a phone. So did drivers older and younger than 30 and drivers using hand-held and hands-free phones."
McCartt's IIHS colleague Russ Rader contends, "it doesn't matter whether you're using a hand-held phone or hands-free equipment, the danger's ever present. *This study clearly shows that drivers should not be using cell phones when driving.* The research shows that the risk is significant. If you're on a cell phone when driving, you're putting yourself and your passengers at risk, and you're endangering the lives of other motorists. "

https://www.insurance.com/quotes/Ar...Phone_Users_More_Prone_to_Accidents/artid/319


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Next up: The "other stuff is worse" argument.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> Next up: The "other stuff is worse" argument.


How can you even THINK of cell phones, when Dr. Keith is speaking on far more serious matters?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Next up: The "other stuff is worse" argument.


It must be tough to continue to defend a now proven to be unsafe practice.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Not only that, but he maintains a "handheld bad/handsfree ok" position despite evidence to the contrary. Double-double standard. 

Pretty clear protection of a personal want and/or belief without just saying so.

"I drive better when I've had a few (conversations)." 
Yet another generation with its untouchable practices.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> How can you even THINK of cell phones, when Dr. Keith is speaking on far more serious matters?


Forget that earlier post, I found Dr. Keith:

"Keith Devlin at STANFORD UNIVERSITY - Dr. Keith Devlin is a Senior Researcher at CSLI and its Executive Director, a Consulting Professor in the Department of Mathematics, and a co-founder of the Stanford Media X research network and of the university's H-STAR institute. He is a World Economic Forum Fellow and a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. His current research is focused on the use of different media to teach and communicate mathematics to diverse audiences. He also works on the design of information/reasoning systems for intelligence analysis."

I sent him an e-mail asking him about cell phones and driving, but I'm not holding my breath for a reply.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

These hippies were once the counterculture. Now they're the establishment.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/...=03066cfe-aac5-4d15-8400-2facba7fc2bf&k=72287

Similarly to how we can post what companies say and shout at the deniers.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Even AMEC and Finning International ban cell phones while driving!

'bout right.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MD: What was your evidentiary basis for having a problem with using hand-held cell phones while driving?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

As per MD's valid suggestion...

Within the polluter-pay principle, the ideas of punishing "industry" are well known, but what does that mean to the individual?

Property taxes, from what I've seen, do not fully adjust for the real marginal cost of municipal services (some places partially adjust). For example, for an acre of land what is the property tax difference between X houses and 500X condos?

A real approach to climate change and the polluter-pay principle, versus just angrily pointing at others, would involve real change in many of our taxes. This makes sense, but it is hard to accept. It is always preferable when "someone else" has to pay.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Sorry, when they can accurately predict my two week weather forceast, I might believe the 2050 projects. 

As for global warming, sure the planet is getting warmer. Are humans the major cause? Not so sure, particularly when the Martian ice caps are melting at the same rate.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

NBiBooker said:


> Sorry, when they can accurately predict my two week weather forceast, I might believe the 2050 projects.


Can they predict that January is colder than July? (yes, different balance of factors)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Not so sure, particularly when the Martian ice caps are melting at the same rate.





> Global warming on Mars?
> Filed under:
> Climate Science
> 
> ...


Maybe the Rovers disturbed the balance


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Maybe the Rovers disturbed the balance


That or the whole global warming thing is a myth. Which do you think more likely? One little rover, or trumped up science? I know which one I'm going with.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm not suggesting anyone read this, but there was a laughably bad "Toronto 2050" article in the Toronto Star today with a whole slate of specious predictions based on nothing. May as well be the Rover that caused it.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

No thanks. I prefer to have my specious predictions based on something.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> No thanks. I prefer to have my specious predictions based on something.


A specious prediction could be based on something, providing it was deceptive, but you'll have to find those yourself. I work and work and work for you kids...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

No thank you - I find enough deceptive material in here, actually; it's like a gold mine.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So are you going to use that gold mine to pay Stern now or pay him later?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I'll get back to you shortly. I have to scrounge up about a half dozen links, a little blue ball of concentrated anger and two clapbots. Plus three or four exclamation marks. Then I'll show you, by gum.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

An interesting if a bit polemic coverage in the Star - Toronto 2050 - front page no less.



> *T.O. 2050: Bad weather ahead*
> 
> TONY BOCK/TORONTO STAR FILE PHOTO
> 
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/article/195794


seems cities are getting well ahead of the curve foot draggers in other regional and federal govs. :clap:



> *WHAT IS THE U.S. MAYORS CLIMATE PROTECTION AGREEMENT?*
> 
> Climate disruption is an urgent threat to the environmental and economic health of our communities. Many cities, in this country and abroad, already have strong local policies and programs in place to reduce global warming pollution, but more action is needed at the local, state, and federal levels to meet the challenge. On February 16, 2005 the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to address climate disruption, became law for the 141 countries that have ratified it to date. On that day, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels launched this initiative to advance the goals of the Kyoto Protocol through leadership and action by at least 141 American cities. Mayor Nickels, along with a growing number of other US mayors, is leading the development of a US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement ; our goal was for at least 141 mayors to sign onto the Agreement by the time of the U.S. Conference of Mayors June 2005 meeting in Chicago .
> 
> ...


http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/climate/

....seems it's catching...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=0ea8dc23-ad1a-440f-a8dd-1e3ff42df34f

..............................
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is very particular about the scientists it selects to investigate the health consequences of global warming. Those the likes of Paul Reiter needn't apply.
..............................


Just for fun. Mosquito stuff.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Finally some evidence of fear mongering:

"I know of no major scientist with any long record in this field who agrees with the pronouncements of the alarmists at the IPCC," states Prof. Reiter, whose history in his research field spans three decades and five continents, and who is well familiar with the scope of work occurring in the mosquito-borne research community.
"On the contrary, all of us who work in the field are repeatedly stunned by the IPCC pronouncements. We protest, but are rarely quoted, and if so, usually as a codicil to the scary stuff."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Let's consider who put Reiter's name forward and when.....and consider that in relation to the Bush & Co continual obfuscation and footdragging.

I don't doubt there is politics of this sort going on - but there is NO doubt the general approach of the US policy wonks in Washington is to be obstructionist where ever they can.



> the U.S. State Department in 2001, upon the recommendation of its own health authorities, nominated Prof. Reiter to be a lead author of the IPCC's next health chapter.


Given the widespread findings of obstruction and suppression of scientists in the US over the Bush time in office this particular incident would more likely seem just one more of a series.

ahem......



> Reiter, the Annapolis Centre and Exxon
> Reiter sits on the "Scientific and Economic Advisory Council" of an organization called the "Annapolis Centre for Science-Based Public Policy. " The Annapolis Centre is a US think tank that has received $763,500 in funding from ExxonMobil and has been very active in playing down the human contribution to global warming. According to a January 16, 1997 Wall Street Journal article, the Annapolis Center was at one time largely funded by the National Association of Manufacturers, one of the largest industry associations in North America.
> 
> Reiter, Tech Central Station and Exxon
> Reiter is listed as an author for Tech Central Station daily (TCS), an organization that until very recently was owned and operated by a Republican lobby firm called DCI Group.



Right in there with Fred Singer et al. Sinc you'll glom on to everything that supports your conspracy theory whe all you have to do is look at the funding and the antecedents.

Did it ever occur to you the IPCC report may be erring on the conservative side.
Many do.

••



> Investigation Reveals Widespread Suppression of Federal Climate Research
> 
> WASHINGTON—An investigative report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Government Accountability Project (GAP) has uncovered new evidence of widespread political interference in federal climate science. The report, which includes a survey of hundreds of federal scientists at seven federal agencies and dozens of in-depth interviews, documents a high regard for climate change research but broad interference in communicating scientific results


http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/investigation-reveals-0007.html

You really think the US State dept move to appoint Reiter was not part of the same campaign,???


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> No thank you - I find enough deceptive material in here, actually; it's like a gold mine.


Max--now you'll have to read it. The laughable Toronto Star piece I had referred to in this thread yesterday was just posted by MacDoc above!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Can B.C. make U-turn to green?*
> 
> The province will take concerted action to reverse greenhouse gases, but MARK HUME discovers some doubt the strategy
> 
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070326.wbcgreenmain26/BNStory/specialComment

like road and transit subsidizing - decarbonization is here MF despite your wailing and gnashing of teeth.
As I noted the Torontor Star article is a polemic but there is little question the next couple of decades will see more and more summers like 2004.

...no amount of puerile snickering as you like to engage in will change things....it's just indicative of the "quality" of the opponents of this rapidly growing effort for decarbonizing.
For all it's supposed "might", even the US NeoCons can't sustain their "doubt is our product" campaign any longer.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> ...no amount of puerile snickering as you like to engage in will change things.


Who wants to change things? I'm watching a huge field of incompetents trying to change the weather like King Canute. You don't get this kind of entertainment at the movies.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

change coming...whatever you'd like to think..let''s hope this team over estimates the severity



> *]Global climates face threat of fearsome changes*
> 22:00 26 March 2007
> 
> NewScientist.com news service
> ...


http://environment.newscientist.com...climates-face-threat-of-fearsome-changes.html

What the IPCC DIDN'T say ..........

•••

There is a difference between slowing down the damage and "changing the climate".


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> VANCOUVER — As Throne Speeches go, the one delivered in the British Columbia Legislature this year by Lieutenant-Governor Iona Campagnolo could only be described as electrifying.
> 
> In the middle of her address the elegant former broadcaster who speaks with a carefully measured tone and whose stiff posture is reflected in her native Tsimsean name, "Person Who Sits High," veered from the usual political banalities and went straight to the heart of one of the most troubling problems of our age.


"Person Who Sits High"? Gimme a break! Like I've said a hundred, nay a thousand times, there is no elegance to a representative of Liz or her dysfunctional family. Only embarrassment.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What brutal editorializing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sydney Herald

Minchin denies climate change man-made

Wendy Frew Environment Reporter
March 15, 2007

A SENIOR Federal Government minister has expressed serious doubts global warming has been caused by humans, relying on non-scientific material and discredited sources to back his claim.

One month after a United Nations scientific panel delivered its strongest warning yet that humans were causing global warming, the [Australian] Finance Minister, Nick Minchin, has questioned the link between fossil fuels and greenhouse gas pollution.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Portugal opens major solar plant
> 
> The solar power plant is in one of Europe's sunniest areas
> Portugal has inaugurated what it says is the world's most powerful solar power plant.
> ...


wow big number - 45% :clap:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6505221.stm


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> wow big number - 45%


Canada's is bigger.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,,2044191,00.html
............................
The EU's new climate change goals will cost up to €1.1 trillion (£747bn) to implement over the next 14 years, according to a new study.
............................
But the study by the consulting firm McKinsey published in a German newspaper yesterday, argues it is both economically and technically possible to reduce emissions on schedule, but that the political effort necessary will be immense.
............................


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Beej - is that net of savings tho - ie I assume that's a capital cost number and does it take in account conservation and perhaps cap/trade sales/costs??

Also I had heard that it was almost half that number to just bring the existing grid up to speed to handle demand and to keep it maintained.

•••



> *Sydney dims lights in global warming protest*
> Updated Sat. Mar. 31 2007 7:48 AM ET
> 
> Associated Press
> ...


Mel "call me prescient" Gibson's world. 

I really don't understand why we need all the street lighting we have. Never did - GHG be damned.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Beej - is that net of savings tho - ie I assume that's a capital cost number and does it take in account conservation and perhaps cap/trade sales/costs??
> 
> Also I had heard that it was almost half that number to just bring the existing grid up to speed to handle demand and to keep it maintained.


"The potential in building insulation should be given much more attention," Mr Vahlenkamp said. "There is a wealth of cost-free possibilities that would neither negatively effect our lifestyles nor our comfort."



I'm still trying to get a hold of the report. If anybody finds it (and it's English) please send me the link.

My understanding is that the costs are net (so some things are very cheap because they save operating costs).

If that is so, this is implicitly incremental to what is needed to just keep building, renewing and growing as per usual (their "BAU" case). Depends on the model, but I've worked with analysis from similar sounding models.

What it may not value is add-on benefits, like air quality, or add-on costs like biofuels can cause. Also, the variety of feedback mechanisms is really tough to completely cover, but it can be reasonably done.

It think it's great news. It starts to put cost estimates over more tangible timeframes out there. Those kinds of costs are doable but pricey.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

If that's net that IS a chunk. 

One of the better results of this whole effort is the high profile solar is getting. I've been reading of some really aggressive programs.

I mean this is very cool.












> *11-MW Solar PV Plant Dedicated in Portugal*
> 
> Serpa, Portugal [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]
> 
> ...


Just seeing it on that scale is a mind blower.
11-MW Solar PV Plant Dedicated in Portugal

I very much admire how GE has transformed itself over the past decades. Remarkable leadership - much needed in this area.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Here’s a little 12 volt unit I am going to be using this summer in our motor home to avoid using electricty via 110 volt or generator in place of our air conditioner. 

Seems to me it might be a good solution in hot summer climates to cool an office without running a full blown air conditioner. 

All you need is a good deep cycle 12 volt battery and a trickle charger that runs on solar as it only draws .9 amps.

!MightyKool Personal Coolers by Swampy


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Court rules against Bush in global warming case*
> 
> Mon Apr 2, 2007 5:52PM EDT
> By James Vicini
> ...


Court rules against Bush in global warming case | Reuters


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Russia Sees Ill Effects of 'General Winter's' Retreat*
> By Cheryl Lyn Dybas
> Special to the Washington Post
> Monday, April 2, 2007; Page A06
> ...


washingtonpost.com


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Expect Canada's winter to melt: climate report
> Updated Tue. Apr. 3 2007 10:15 PM ET
> 
> David Akin, CTV News
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...climate_impact_070403/20070403?hub=TopStories

If the first IPCC was moderately dire - this one looks to be stronger warning. and specific......Interesting timing for back to Parliament


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I see the IPCC is still trying to panic people. It gets really tiring, but not nearly as tiring as those horribly long posts. After post, after post.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I would imagine every IPCC report that follows will contain just enough scary goodies to try to instigate the interest it has so far failed to generate--except in the effete countries of the European Community.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I see in this mornings paper scientists are predicting yet another record setting hurricane season due to global warming. If memory serves, I seem to recall they did the same thing last year and it didn't happen. I guess they are working on the theory that if you predict it every season, you will eventually get it right?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: Last year they tried to fudge it by saying, decreased frequency, but increased intensity. My suggestion is that they save the predictions until after the hurricane season.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Scientists track remarkable “breathing” in nanoporous materials - ESRF


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Don’t temperature records show significant warming? Satellite, weather balloon and non-urban ground data reveal no apprecible atmospheric warming since 1979, except in Alaska and Siberia, at night, in mid-winter. The observed warming cited by news services, certain scientists and many environmental groups is very likely tainted by errors associated with “urban heat island” effects that come from taking ground-based measurements near airports or heavily-populated areas:


http://www.cfactcampus.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=6&Itemid=61


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

“PARIS - Global warming could be heating Mars four times faster than Earth due to a mutually reinforcing interplay of windswept dust and changes in reflected heat from the sun, according to a study released Wednesday.”

Must be all those humans and vehicles spewing GHGs is it?


http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=398e5ad7-360b-482e-9e37-7dcc292b433e

And now this:

“OTTAWA - Canada has little chance of making its Kyoto Protocol commitments because its targets are much more stringent than commonly believed, say experts on the treaty.
The target all federal parties talk about -- about a 26-per-cent cut in carbon emissions by 2012 -- is just the start, say Kyoto insiders. It would leave the country far behind its legal requirements.
The single most important part of the protocol is a twist seldom mentioned in public: Canada's target is a five-year average, not a goal to reach by the end of the Kyoto period.
"We can't just hit the target once at the end of the period," said economics professor Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph. "If we are 100 megatonnes over in the first year, we have to be 100 megatonnes under the target another year to offset the first year."”

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=2e48c02e-1b3b-4970-a3ff-e4fd0ba11b9b


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> It would leave the country far behind its *legal* requirements.


I love the use of the word "legal" here. Kind of like people who have had a crack deal go sour taking the pusher to court.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> > *Warming climate creates mountains of mushrooms*
> > 19:00 05 April 2007
> > NewScientist.com news service
> > Andy Coghlan
> ...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Saw some useful modeling today about getting to ~50% below current GHG emissions. Essentially the model (appeared) to solve using the ideal instrument (tax) and the result is a mapped out price on carbon that gets to about $200 per tonne. A major element was that decisions were based on seeing the future (increasing) tax profile.

Useful information as an efficiency frontier for people to think about. Of course, as a 40+ year projection, you never know, but it's useful to start realising the challenge. Government cannot buy their way out of this one (unless they use foreign credits). This is a huge but doable challenge.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Model of what nature - you mean a GHG reduction strategy??
This for Canada or world??
Got a link??

••


This is the actual report releasedd by the IPCC today

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/06_04_05_climate.pdf



> All-night meeting needed to approve climate change report
> ARTHUR MAX
> Associated Press
> BRUSSELS — An international global warming conference approved a report on climate change Friday, chairman Rajendra Pachauri said, after a contentious marathon session that saw angry exchanges between diplomats and scientists who drafted the report.
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070406.wclimate0406/BNStory/International/home


Good article in New Scientist. We'll see how the next 

http://environment.newscientist.com...ate-change-is-here-now-says-major-report.html

Apparently Saudi Arabia was particularly obstreperous in demanding GHG limiting references be toned down.
In particular about how GHG curbs could limit the impact.

3rd Report should be out next month.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Model of the Canadian economy, energy use and emissions (covers the majority of Canada's GHG emissions). The results are preliminary so there's no report yet.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

••••


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Australian states commit to greenhouse gas cuts*
> 
> 16:09 13 April 2007
> NewScientist.com news service
> ...


Australian states commit to greenhouse gas cuts - earth - 13 April 2007 - New Scientist Environment

More and more communities and local regions are just getting on with it :clap:

early signs of Balkanization in other areas as well maybe??

There was an interesting article on citystate power - Tokyo and Canada are similar economic powers.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think it's just an early sign of grass-roots, pants-pooping fear.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Global warming | A new tree line | Economist.com

Lumberjacks will help save the planet.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Generals warn on warming*
> 
> FERNANDO BUSTAMANTE/AP FILE PHOTO
> Apr 15, 2007 09:22 AM
> ...


TheStar.com - News - Generals warn on warming


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

You know, I read that story in the morning paper and the first thing that went through my mind was that it would be more fodder for MD to post. Seems I was right.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Normally I would think the generals are warm on warning. Guess they decided they needed a change.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If we can have a zoologist as Canada's "global warming guru" then certainly six retired generals can't be ignored. 

nyone who has been part of the process of reports like these better believe that they didn't just put these old guys in a room and ask them for their thoughts--they were only hired to write the report based on this one outcome.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Norway aims to be 'zero-emission' state by 2050*
> 
> Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, seen here in March 2007, proposed to make Norway the first "zero-emission" state by 2050 and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 30 percent by 2020.
> 
> ...


]

Norway aims to be 'zero-emission' state by 2050

Hmmm $165 billlion tucked away in the resource fund and now zero carbon by 2050. Remarkable what a little foresight achieves.
'Course massive hydro power helps...still........


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Zero is more of a PR thing and is not necessary, not to mention taking a larger perspective on what Norway could do with their hydro. Of course, "reduced somewhere else" is a good opening for sensibility. Good for them but, let's not get caught up in the spin.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Believe this over the Liberals any time:

Kyoto bill a 'risky, reckless scheme': Baird

John Baird painted a distastrous economic picture Thursday if Canada were to meet its Kyoto promises on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but opposition parties accused the environment minister of not basing his forecast on facts. 

Appearing before a sometimes hostile Senate environment committee in Ottawa, Baird said a Liberal bill calling for the government to honour Canada's commitment under the Kyoto treaty is a "risky, reckless scheme" that would result a recession and 275,000 Canadians losing their jobs by 2009.

The bill put forward by Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez, and passed by the Commons, would require the government to honour Canada's commitment under the Kyoto treaty, which calls for a six per cent cut in greenhouse emissions from 1990 levels by 2012.

"The economics just don't add up," Baird said, and warned that gasoline prices would jump 60 per cent and natural gas prices would double. He said his predictions were based on studies by some of the country's leading economists.

"There is only one way to make it happen: to manufacture a recession."

Kyoto bill a 'risky, reckless scheme': Baird


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Sinc: The analysis, that works given the assumptions (I think it understates, given the assumptions) was a political ploy in response to another political ploy, both of which depend upon shameless obfuscation (with underlying relevant reason) to smear their favourite target. The parties (all of them) should be ashamed about this football game. 

Get on with it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Sinc: The analysis, that works given the assumptions (I think it understates, given the assumptions) was a political ploy in response to another political ploy, both of which depend upon shameless obfuscation (with underlying relevant reason) to smear their favourite target. The parties (all of them) should be ashamed about this football game.
> 
> Get on with it.


Agreed, but one side is as ridiculous as the other. There is middle ground yet to be found. Kyoto is the impossible dream. Today's report is all anti Kyoto.

The solution is somewhere in the middle, but NOT Kyoto.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

As long as, by Kyoto, you mean coming remotely close to meeting our phase one targets through domestic action. Then I agree. Beyond that, there's a lot more to it than the three ring circus 0.5 km from my current location, including the importance of international action and slowly (and imperfectly) getting things working. Strangely enough, we have worked with other countries before. 

But, yes, the smear, re-smear, anti-smear, regarding the mystical year of 2012 is atrocious on all sides. Of course, they all have appropriate wording to acknowledge that it is more than that.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I can agree with your assessment Beej, but for one thing. Buying carbon credits from another country is NOT anything that should even be considered. Spend our own money at home to work towards the objective, but NEVER give it to another potentially corrupt government to play with. Trouble is too many countries who qualify under Kyoto to buy carbon credits from, fit that corrupt definition.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

and in the 'tis and ill wind category..



> *British vineyards bubbling with optimism*
> 
> Kent similar to Bordeaux, growers observe
> Apr 25, 2007 01:30 PM
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/News/article/207055


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

and in the 'tis and ill wind category..



> *British vineyards bubbling with optimism*
> 
> Kent similar to Bordeaux, growers observe
> Apr 25, 2007 01:30 PM
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/News/article/207055


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

“Besides, if you believe Al Gore's hysterical warnings about global warming, then banning incandescent light bulbs probably isn't going to stop a six-metre rise in world sea levels when the Arctic ice melts.
Ultimately, what Canada does or doesn't do is irrelevant. We produce two per cent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. The big players -- the U.S., China, India, Russia -- have either refused to join Kyoto, aren't covered by it, or have achieved their Kyoto targets by default, as did Russia, because its economy collapsed when the Soviet Union fell apart.
The upshot of all the political hysteria in Canada amounts to this: In the name of paying lip-service to Kyoto, we're going to be paying more in the coming years for gasoline, electricity, heat and virtually everything we buy, because it all has to be transported to us using fossil fuels. Call it a politically correct carbon tax.”

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Commentary/2007/04/26/4130546.html


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Ultimately, what Canada does or doesn't do is irrelevant. We produce two per cent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. The big players -- the U.S., China, India, Russia -- have either refused to join Kyoto, aren't covered by it, or have achieved their Kyoto targets by default, as did Russia, because its economy collapsed when the Soviet Union fell apart.
> The upshot of all the political hysteria in Canada amounts to this: In the name of paying lip-service to Kyoto, we're going to be paying more in the coming years for gasoline, electricity, heat and virtually everything we buy, because it all has to be transported to us using fossil fuels. Call it a politically correct carbon tax.”


I'm sure you enjoy posting these tired old hokum talking points from the Connies...

So SINC, when are you going to stop paying your taxes because in the end, your contribution is insignificant to the global budgets...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> So SINC, when are you going to stop paying your taxes because in the end, your contribution is insignificant to the global budgets...


Funny question to ask. I know of not one tax that is global.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: AS is part of some archaic "Internationalist's League" that wants to see one world government guaranteeing freedom for all.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> SINC: AS is part of some archaic "Internationalist's League" that wants to see one world government guaranteeing freedom for all.


Care to back that up? Or are you ****ed off because Rosie took a swipe at S. Crow and now you can't accuse her of being a Greenie?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Funny question to ask. I know of not one tax that is global.


Maybe we should stop all trading with other countries as we don't need them in our economy... Bye bye cheap Chinese goods.
On the up side SINC, all that oil would stay in Canada...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> ..are you ****ed off because Rosie took a swipe at S. Crow and now you can't accuse her of being a Greenie?


I have no idea what you're talking about. I work all day.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*Scientist Calls Global Warming Theories 'Bunk,' Cites Errors of Logic*

"(CNSNews.com) - Just as Galileo and Einstein transcended the "consensus" of their day, so too will a growing body of scientific evidence eventually vindicate non-alarmist views on global warming, predicts environmental scientist Fred Singer.

The very notion of consensus on global warming is a "laughable" proposition, Singer said during a talk at the Heritage Foundation this week.

Proponents of man-made global warming theories, such as former Vice President Al Gore, claim there is scientific consensus on a link between human activity and rising temperatures.

Singer said he sees "bunk" and "misinformation" at work in the debate."

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200703/NAT20070315b.html


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Singer said he sees "bunk" and "misinformation" at work in the debate.


Why do you insist on quoting from the most piffling sources?
Like a moth attracted to light, you gravitate to assmonkeys that have little credibility except with the fringe elements and those too lazy to think...


Fred Singer is an oil lobbyist that receives funding from ExxonMobil.
He's been a tobacco industry flap and a junk science writer.
Add to that a liar...

Why do you insist on straining credulity this way SINC? I hope what you write in the newspapers is opinion pieces.....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ASs Monkey.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> ASs Monkey.


Oh look! Another fine contribution by MF....
Do you ever have any thing of substance or do you just troll around? 

I'm sure that SINC is capable enough of addressing this:
Why do you insist on quoting from the most piffling sources?
Like a moth attracted to light, you gravitate to assmonkeys that have little credibility except with the fringe elements and those too lazy to think...


Fred Singer is an oil lobbyist that receives funding from ExxonMobil.
He's been a tobacco industry flap and a junk science writer.
Add to that a liar...

Why do you insist on straining credulity this way SINC? I hope what you write in the newspapers is opinion pieces.....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Why do you insist on quoting from the most piffling sources?
> Like a moth attracted to light, you gravitate to assmonkeys that have little credibility except with the fringe elements and those too lazy to think...


Because I like the way he thinks.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: Apparently I'm to apologize to you over my contribution to this discussion between you and AS, since he has declared you "perfectly capable of addressing this."

That's quite a compliment coming from AS!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> SINC: Apparently I'm to apologize to you over my contribution to this discussion between you and AS, since he has declared you "perfectly capable of addressing this."


Judging by SINC's response I take it back...

Embracing flagrant nonsense.... what a go SINC!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oh my this is early



> *European weather offices fear heat wave*
> 
> JEREMY LOVELL
> Reuters
> ...


 ;(

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070427.weuroclim0427/BNStory/International

fiddle......burning........ comes to mind.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Oh my this is early
> 
> ;(
> 
> ...


{sarcasm} oh no it is just a scam! There is no such thing as global warming. Global warming is a plot hatched by communists to undermine capitalist economies don't cha know! {/sarcasm}


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I love it. Short-term cold trends don't disprove Global Warming Theory, but warm trends do.

I blame it on Martman's huge, clumsy ecological footprint.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The Fourth IPCC Policy Summary

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_SPM.pdf

The complete WG1 IPCC 4th Assessment report

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/209545

That was always the fear thatr the IPCC would be too cautious.  



> *Arctic thawing faster than forecast*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Now MacDoc, the Arctic ice cap has always been a myth.... There has never been any ice there.... It's a story invented by hippies and pinkos...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm happy to see AS and MacDoc responding in a big way.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Now MacDoc, the Arctic ice cap has always been a myth.... There has never been any ice there.... It's a story invented by hippies and pinkos...


The Arctic Ice Cap?

It's only disappearing since it was sold out at Tim Hortons.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

HowEver: I hear they're bringing it back. That's true corporate responsibility!


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I love it. Short-term cold trends don't disprove Global Warming Theory, but warm trends do.
> 
> I blame it on Martman's huge, clumsy ecological footprint.


This is just the usual disingenuous crap from MF. Short term cooling trends do NOT disprove global warming trends but LONG TERM WARMING TRENDS DO INDEED PROVE GLOBAL WARMING. 
There is nothing "Short term" about current warming trends. Keep putting your head in the sand and keep trying to stop everyone from fixing this.  
We just barley made it with the CFCs and the ozone layer. I bet you'd have fought that tooth and nail too. tptptptp

Of course a 30 year advance on the most dire predictions for the northern ice cap mean nothing to you. Hope you like to swim...

But seriously you give the impression that you couldn't care less about those less fortunate than you. I wish you lived in Micronesia or the UK or even the Netherlands, then you might give a sh*t.



{sarcasm} Oh my wallet! Damn those welfare bums and environmentalists! They are costing me too much! {/sarcasm}


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

martman said:


> This is just the usual disingenuous crap from MF.


Of course it is.
Next x-mas, I'm sending MF monkeys and typewriters, it's guaranteed to elevate his level of so-called diatribe...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Of course it is.
> Next x-mas, I'm sending MF monkeys and typewriters, it's guaranteed to elevate his level of so-called diatribe...


:clap: :clap: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm all in favour of you guys living the cave-man lifestyle. Back to nature! Go for it!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I'm all in favour of you guys living the cave-man lifestyle. Back to nature! Go for it!


So are you saying that progress it synonymous with completely 'effing up the environment?
Maybe you'd enjoy living in a toxic waste dump, that should meet your criteria of progress....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> So are you saying that progress it synonymous with completely 'effing up the environment?
> Maybe you'd enjoy living in a toxic waste dump, that should meet your criteria of progress....


AS: In the old days, Bob Hope would pay 5 bucks for a gag that works. Maybe you should see if some of those old joke writers are still in business.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I'm all in favour of you guys living the cave-man lifestyle. Back to nature! Go for it!


{sarcasm}Right that is what everyone who has argued with you in this thread has said. {/sarcasm}
Please show one quote that indicates this or even hints at this.
You can't. If you are going to criticize us at least be honest about it!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

martman said:


> {sarcasm}Right that is what everyone who has argued with you in this thread has said. {/sarcasm}
> Please show one quote that indicates this or even hints at this.
> You can't. If you are going to criticize us at least be honest about it!


It's what is called {sarcasm} sarcasm {/sarcasm}. I have always criticized the Greenhouse gasers largely because their belief is a Gaia-esque religion. The Earth itself as "Sky-Daddy." 

I believe that the human contribution to climate change is minimal. But people are scared, much as the primitives who sacrificed animals when their was no rain. I would fight a little harder against it all, but as Einstein said, "The tyranny of the ignoramuses is insurmountable and assured for all time"


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> It's what is called {sarcasm} sarcasm {/sarcasm}. I have always criticized the Greenhouse gasers largely because their belief is a Gaia-esque religion. The Earth itself as "Sky-Daddy."
> 
> I believe that the human contribution to climate change is minimal. But people are scared, much as the primitives who sacrificed animals when their was no rain.


Wow another patently false assertion by MF.
I really like how you take groundless (and rather embarrassing statements) and try to serve them up as wisdom...

Maybe you should call all the science behind climate change the work of the devil and all scientists heretics...

Beej, do you have any loathsome comments to add here? I'm in need of another chortle...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Maybe you should call all the science behind climate change the work of the devil and all scientists heretics...


I believe many of them are sincere, and I see no need to insult them.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I believe that the human contribution to climate change is minimal.


This is where your beliefs are divergent from the parsimonious interpretation of data. My question is, are you simply able to believe whatever you like (i.e. you choose what to believe on the basis of how it makes you feel, not because you are compelled by reason and evidence) or are you claiming your expertise is sufficient that you can dismiss the consensus of the scientific community on this issue (i.e. you have a hypothesis that explains all the data better than the climatic models currently accepted as our best understanding).

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

My expertise is sufficient to dismiss the consensus of the scientific community.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Seems to me those who blindly follow science as "always right" have a compassion of their own to be concerned with, don't they MF?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> My expertise is sufficient to dismiss the consensus of the scientific community.


Okay. I'm willing to accept that you _believe_ you're sufficiently knowledgeable that your opinions on this issue have more merit than those of the scientific community.

However, if you want _me_, or any one else with a modicum of intelligence, to believe you, you're going to have to tell us why you're interpretations are so much better. Firstly, let us know what sort of qualifications you have to be making such extraordinary pronouncements, and secondly (even more importantly) explain how your theory fits the data better than those proposed by the climatologists.

And, SINC, I don't know anyone who thinks that science or scientists are "always right." Science is simply the best method we have for sorting false theories from potentially true theories. The theory that human activity has altered our climate fits the data better than any other competing theory, so we are forced to accept that until a better theory or new data comes along. That's how science works.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> And, SINC, I don't know anyone who thinks that science or scientists are "always right." Science is simply the best method we have for sorting false theories from potentially true theories. The theory that human activity has altered our climate fits the data better than any other competing theory, so we are forced to accept that until a better theory or new data comes along. That's how science works.
> 
> Cheers


I'm among those who choose to wait, "until a better theory or new data comes along."

That's how "not" believing all science works.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> However, if you want _me_, or any one else with a modicum of intelligence, to believe you, you're going to have to tell us why you're interpretations are so much better.


I'm not interested in convincing others to believe me. While I might enjoy a little banter on the subject, feeling the need to convince others is--I believe--a hallmark of insecurity.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Perhaps I'm just misinterpreting your tone, MF, but my objection is that, unlike SINC who makes no claims of expertise, and therefore is choosing to remain ignorant, you persist in presenting your unsubstantiated claim that the science is wrong without admitting your complete ignorance of the subject.

I make no claims regarding the interpretation of the data itself because I'm not a climatologist, however, as a scientist, and as someone who understands the culture of science, I am compelled to accept that such strong consensus within a field is very good evidence that the evidence supporting the theory is unequivocal.

I very much hope that the climatologists have got it wrong, but I very much doubt that they have. Thus it behooves us to act on their recommendations, even if it's going to cost us in the short term. This is especially true because it will almost certainly benefit us in the long term regardless of the accuracy of current climatological theories.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> feeling the need to convince others is--I believe--a hallmark of insecurity.


I would agree with this if we were discussing the need to convince others to dress like you, or listen to the same music as you, or behave in ways that were otherwise of no consequence.

However, to make an analogy, if we're all in a leaky lifeboat together, it would not be insecure of me to try to convince you to help with the bailing of the water, would it? If you were in your own life boat, and you persisted in believing that you were not sinking, I might tire of the argument and leave you to your fate, however, given that we're all in this together, weather we like it or not, changing other people's behavior becomes more than an academic debate.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I might tire of the argument and leave you to your fate, however, given that we're all in this together, weather we like it or not, changing other people's behavior becomes more than an academic debate.


I tire of yours. Leave me to my fate.

Here's another analogy. It hasn't rained for weeks and some primitive tribe is heaping animals on the fire as a sacrifice to the rain gods. Better just leave at that point. There's no reason to try to convince them when they're in the grip of such fear.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Wonderful non-answer MF. Ever think of writing for politicians?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Wonderful non-answer MF. Ever think of writing for politicians?


I have, but they usually only pay me in political donation credits, so I gave it up.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Wow... a wold-class climatologist _and_ a political speech writer! Is there anything you can't do, MF?

Folks, we are in the presence of greatness.  

cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

There is one thing I can't do. I have always wanted to be a Master Chef at a world class hotel in Paris, but for some reason that one's escaped me.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I take it that's only because you've never been to Paris, is it MF?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: I will be in Paris this June for a meeting with Pierre Hermé. I will report back to you about my level of culinary achievement!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Drought to force up bills for power*
> 
> Matthew Warren, Environment writer
> May 05, 2007
> ...


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21674776-601,00.html

*Paying NOW...even MORE later.*

Meanwhile in Italy

Ever faster....... :sad: ...lot of dominoes falling here, no power, irrigation, no snowfall, glaciers gone. This year MAYBE it gets' dodged, next time maybe it won't......



> *Italy's largest river drying up*
> Reuters
> May 4, 2007 at 12:10 PM EDT
> 
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070504.witaly04/BNStory/International/home


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

*Fraud, of a sort*

*Virtual office and Call Center Firm turns environmental groups away for the basic fraud of the entire global warming alarmist industry.*



> New York, NY (PRWeb) April 12, 2007 -- The Successful Office Group, a leading call center, answering service and virtual office hybrid firm based in New York City announced today that it will turn away 'Global Warming' enthusiasts due to basic fraud.
> 
> "We've been asked to field the calls for a national environmental group for its fund raising tasks related to global warming. In keeping with our anti-fraud policies we regret that we must turn such clients away no matter how popular their fraud is," said Michael Anthony, the CEO of the company.
> 
> ...


Global Warming Causes Call Center - Virtual Office Firm to Turn Away Clients


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You're pissing into the wind MF.....go work for some tobacco company they need the fertilizer output.

GHG levels..can be stablized at a VERY reasonable cost



> *Costs of stabilising global warming 'negligible'*
> 18:18 04 May 2007
> NewScientist.com news service
> 
> ...


http://environment.newscientist.com...of-stabilising-global-warming-negligible.html


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I know both of you gents are very serious but nonetheless sometimes I feel like I am in the cheap seats watching some kind of modern gladitorial farce. It's like The Battle Of The Links.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MAx: I ask again, should you lower yourself to watching such a farce? 

I note that the new IPCC CO2 mitigation costs as a % of GDP are comparatively so low, that they make Stern look like a pompus fool with his high estimates.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

One of the more passionate articles I've come across :clap:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21434695-12272,00.html

Here you go MF - you've earned it


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The article looks like about a hundred I've already read--billions dead this century, huh?

I do appreciate that he made the connection between GHGers and religion quite strongly.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> MAx: I ask again, should you lower yourself to watching such a farce?
> 
> I note that the new IPCC CO2 mitigation costs as a % of GDP are comparatively so low, that they make Stern look like a pompus fool with his high estimates.


MAcfury, sometimes I can't resist the view from the cheap seats. They are, after all, cheap. And I'm a Scot by venerable heritage; I should think this would adequately explain my position.

As for the IPCC CO2 and percentage stuff, well, as we like to say at work when things are looking a bit dodgy, "I can't speak to that." Said with a poker face, it truly works wonders.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The not so cheap seats ....military funding...maybe....



> *Ex-military leaders call climate change a national security issue*
> By John Timmer | Published: May 28, 2007 - 02:43AM CT
> 
> The Center for Naval Analyses is a think tank that dates back to World War II. Last month, they released a report on the national security implications of climate change, authored by a panel of 11 former admirals and generals. The report suggests that the science of climatology needs to be incorporated into US security planning, and energy-efficient technology needs to be made accessible to both the military and developing world as soon as possible.
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sure: Why not screw up U.S. military planning a little further??!!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Nasssssty........what was risked all along..IPCC way too conservative....



> *NASA: Danger Point Closer Than Thought From Warming*
> 'Disastrous Effects' of Global Warming Tipping Points Near, According to New Study
> 
> By BILL BLAKEMORE
> ...


http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3223473


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, it ain't gonna happen--Kyoto is dead, and most of the signatories aren't even meeting the goals they promised to. Guess we'll all get to see the fabled "tipping point."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

IPCC:

Inaccurately Portrayed Climate Change


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC:

"I Predict Chaotic Climate"....for money!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Fire.....unintended consequences....









Daily Smoke Forecasts Within Google Earth. 



> Daily Forecasts Track Smoke From Southern Fires
> Science Daily — At the request of the Georgia State Department of Health, scientists with the Southern Research Station Smoke Management Team located at the Center for Forest Disturbance Science in Athens, GA, are producing daily smoke forecasts which help communities determine potential health risks caused by current wildfires across south Georgia and north Florida.
> 
> Daily Smoke Forecasts Within Google Earth. (Credit: Google Earth and USDA Forest Service)
> ...


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070530134625.htm


----------



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

I taught in southeastern Georgia, just outside of Waycross, GA, and recall that June/July/August were the dry months, but from what I have read, it was never this dry going in to the dry season. I also went to the University of Georgia in Athens, GA for three years to get my doctorate. Heat and humidity were daily reminders that we had hit the summer months, but it was never really dry.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Fire.....unintended consequences....


What consequences had fire intended?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

=










I see the training is coming along well








=









...*Stern post*.........................................................*Macfury*


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

An interesting idea, but it isn't quite how I envisioned the stimulus/response relationship in this case. I always envisioned it more like this:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MF's photohop skills are on par with his arguments I see.... or was it a 9 year old who did those?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Gee I guess I rang his bell "accidentally" again.....is it foaming or drooling that occurs each time? Foaming I think.

••••••



> Climate change is forcing vulnerable communities in poor countries to adapt to unprecedented climate stress. Rich countries, primarily responsible for creating the problem, must stop harming, by fast cutting their greenhouse-gas emissions, and start helping, by providing finance for adaptation. In developing countries Oxfam estimates that adaptation will cost at least $50bn each year, and far more if global emissions are not cut rapidly. Urgent work is necessary to gain a more accurate picture of the costs to the poor. According to Oxfam's new Adaptation Financing Index, the USA, European Union, Japan, Canada, and Australia should contribute over 95 per cent of the finance needed. This finance must not be counted towards meeting the UN-agreed target of 0.7 per cent for aid. Rich countries are planning multi-billion dollar adaptation measures at home, but to date they have delivered just $48m to international funds for least-developed country adaptation, and have counted it as aid: an unacceptable inequity in global responses to climate change.


http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/5/31/92443/3837


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Keep ringing those sour notes on your GHG alarm bell, MacDoc--I will be here to correct you...forever.

Great story by the way--a charity wants more money and they've found a new way to ask for it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I think we can agree that we're all going to die.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> I think we can agree that we're all going to die.


Well, when I said forever, I meant only as long as I live.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Well, when I said forever, I meant only as long as I live.


Too lazy to keep correcting in the afterlife? I plan to work harder and take over the whole place.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

French......fried 



> *Med to get five times as many dangerously hot days*
> 15:33 18 June 2007
> NewScientist.com news service
> Catherine Brahic
> ...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Later has come sooner than expected..... no clearer statement than this



> 19 June 2007 10:24
> Home > Environment > Climate Change
> The Earth today stands in imminent peril
> ...and nothing short of a planetary rescue will save it from the environmental cataclysm of dangerous climate change. Those are not the words of eco-warriors but the considered opinion of a group of eminent scientists writing in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
> ...


The Earth today stands in imminent peril - Independent Online Edition > Climate Change


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

In case we forget how fragile....

There is hellish more earth than atmosphere.










Hirez version here
http://chamorrobible.org/images/pho...space-sunset-20030721-Pacific-Ocean-large.jpg


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think we should work on that carbon dioxide extractor. Let it run 24/7 so that the people who are really scared can get a good night's sleep.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The more earth than atmosphere argument is particularly relevant to nuclear and avoiding energy-wasting recycling. Neither is pristine and adequate for Mother Nature's faux-moral praise, but we've got more room to bury our poop than we do to pump it into the air. The oft promoted ideal is neither, but that just ignores people that do not buy into the religion of: Mother Nature, at her best without humanity.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Ten predictions about climate change that have come true*
> 
> Here are the hard facts about global warming that everyone should know, compiled for Times Online by internationally acclaimed writer, scientist and explorer Tim Flannery, author of The Weather Makers: Our changing climate and what it means for life on earth
> Tim Flannery
> ...


Ten predictions about climate change that have come true - Times Online


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*The ten biggest changes to the weather wrought by climate change*

1) Shorter winters

1a. We just went through the longest winter on record in forty years. First snow fell in mid September and continued until late April.

2) Less runoff into dams and reservoirs in many regions of the world

2a. The run off in northern Alberta this year flooded fields and delayed spring seeding by as much as three weeks.

3) More violent and longer hurricanes

3a. Haven't had a hurricane in some time. 

4) Less chilly nights

4a. Average overnight lows for the month of June have been around 6 degrees, not exactly balmy is it?

5) Less predictable seasonal conditions

5a. We still get four seasons with little change as I know them from the 1960s.

6) Less snow

6a. We got more snow this year than we have for the last 15 years.

7) More heat waves

7a. We have experienced lower than normal temps for both May and June this year.

8) Less rain in many regions at various seasons

8a. This is the wettest May and June in over 15 years.

9) More severe storms in the North Sea and parts of the southern Ocean

9a. Not applicable.

10) Generally warmer conditions

10a. Not here it's not.


Most of the list provided is totally misleading statements that do not bear scrutiny.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

So SINC, what’s your source for your affirmations?

I don’t mean some muddleheaded observations of a very specific part of the country…. 

I’m expecting the same kind of absolute ignorance given by climate change deniers and a disconnect from reality prevalent in those in certain stages of dementia…


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> So SINC, what’s your source for your affirmations?
> 
> I don’t mean some muddleheaded observations of a very specific part of the country….
> 
> I’m expecting the same kind of absolute ignorance given by climate change deniers and a disconnect from reality prevalent in those in certain stages of dementia…


You just can't do anything without the personal insults, ie: "dementia", can you? That is a sure sign of an unbalanced view.

Here's a source for you:

OTTAWA - Snow in B.C.'s Okanagan, tornadoes whipping around two Prairie provinces, and heat warnings in Ontario and Quebec.
Just five days into the summer, and Canadians are watching all kinds of
severe weather patterns strike their regions, including another twister Tuesday in the tiny town of Ignace, Ont., about 250 km northwest of Thunder Bay.
*"A weather person would say this is normal," said David Phillips, a senior climatologist with Environment Canada. "But because Canadians enjoy changing weather, they find this difficult to understand."*
Residents of southern Ontario and Quebec have seen days averaging 2.5 Celsius warmer for the past month; Manitobans have had to put up with twice the average amount of rain and some B.C. residents have shivered in their suddenly snow-covered sandals.
What's the deal?
*"We're the second largest country in the world and we have a lot of weather landscapes, so there can be some weirdness and wackiness out there," explains Phillips, who said nobody should be surprised at the diversity of the weather in Canada because we are a vast, expansive land.*
"Sometimes the weather patterns set up and stay there," he says, "like unwanted house guests ... one pattern in one part of the country and a different pattern over a different part of the country."

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=9394aeed-e49d-4065-a09d-6f9ecfa72ec3


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Thanks for reinforcing my point again SINC – you extrapolated from your little world and imposed your views once again… Dementia indeed.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Open mind sees climate clearly

It is useful to keep re-evaluating one's beliefs, lest we Sincronise with the folks that just knows what they knows, and durn it all to understandin' stuff and such horsepucky.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Thanks for reinforcing my point again SINC – you extrapolated from your little world and imposed your views once again… Dementia indeed.


Having trouble reading are we?

They were not "my" views, rather they were the views of David Phillips, a senior climatologist with Environment Canada.

I see name calling is still your forte.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> I see name calling is still your forte.


Just as Michael Moore is fat, you are an ***** - don't like the truth?

And his point was don't let extrapolate regional weather to a global climate - which you did.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Frustrated are we?

Fact of the matter is that many weather variations used as scare tactics by the climate change people are simply Mother Nature's normal ways, just like global warming.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Fact of the matter .....)


I'm still waiting for those - all I see is confusion and skulduggery from you.

How about a coherent argument for once?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> I'm still waiting for those - all I see is confusion and skulduggery from you.
> 
> How about a coherent argument for once?


Still can't read I see.

I just gave you one.

Fact:

Some proponents of global warming use examples of normal weather patterns to predict dire warnings of a coming apocalypse.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Fact:
> 
> Some proponents of global warming use examples of normal weather patterns to predict dire warnings of a coming apocalypse.


Some climate change deniers, use localized and normal weather patterns to try and negate facts.

This post is a perfect example
http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else...y-me-now-pay-me-more-later-54.html#post560829


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Some climate change deniers, use localized and normal weather patterns to try and negate facts.
> 
> This post is a perfect example
> http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else...y-me-now-pay-me-more-later-54.html#post560829


Seems like a fair exchange of facts to me. Happy now?

And yes, that post is a fair and accurate example of what has taken place here in Alberta.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: Don't you love it when these carbon ninnies glom on to a heat wave somewhere, then claim that it supports their theories? The only times local phenomena don't count is when the data works against them.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> SINC: Don't you love it when these carbon ninnies glom on to a heat wave somewhere, then claim that it supports their theories? The only times local phenomena don't count is when the data works against them.


And should point it out. 
But don't forget that local weather is not indicative of global climate change...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> A Saturated Gassy Argument
> Filed under:
> 
> A guest post by Spencer Weart, in collaboration with Raymond T. Pierrehumbert
> ...


'http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

So many processes have to be considered in the carbon cycle that it is extremely difficult to keep them in mind, and impossible to calculate without building a computer model to simulate them. Scientists interested in the carbon cycle have built a number of such models over the years. Such models can have between 50 and 100 interacting equations describing all the different processes of the carbon cycle that are relevant to the problem of how carbon dioxide changes through geologic time.

To what extent should the answers generated from such models be trusted? Consider this: if there are a dozen processes which we need to understand, and we only grasp each process within an error of 20 percent, the sum-total of the error adds to more than 200 percent! That is, if we now state that the content of carbon dioxide in the air so many million years ago had to be X, the true answer could be anywhere between 3 times X (200% more than stated) and X divided by 3 (200% less). *Even if we make the reasonable assumption that half of the errors will cancel, we still get roughly a factor of two error on either side of the uncertainty statement. Thus, at the present state of knowledge, computing the answers will get us ballpark estimates and overall trends but not much more.* Now you can appreciate why the range of errors plotted in the figure above are so large.

Climate and CO2 in the Atmosphere


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> and overall trends


Sinc gets poked by the point.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Point being no one can accurately call the weather or the friggin' climate for more than five days, never mind fifty years.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

But overall trends...

Recent Global Warming

Sinc, despite your best attempts to sharpen your own point, it remains dull. Yes, there is uncertainty -- surprise and welcome to life -- but the real point emerges to poke you nonetheless. Trends exist through the uncertainty. Your parochial common sense may have served you well in the past, but it is severely limited.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Point being no one can accurately call the weather or the friggin' climate for more than five days, never mind fifty years.


Since SINC does not seem to understand, even after already going over this, here is a pretty image for you


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Hurricanes and Global Warming: Interview with Meteorologist Dr. William Gray
by James K. Glassman (September 12, 2005)

Meteorologist Dr. William Gray may be the world’s most famous hurricane expert. More than two decades ago, as professor of atmospheric science and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University, he pioneered the science of hurricane forecasting. Each December, six months before the start of hurricane season, the now 75-year-old Gray and his team issue a long-range prediction of the number of major tropical storms that will arise in the Atlantic Ocean basin, as well as the number of hurricanes (with sustained winds of 74 miles per hour or more) and intense hurricanes (with winds of at least 111 mph). This year, Gray expects more activity, with 15 named storms, including 8 hurricanes. Four of them, he says, will be intense. 

Glassman: And from a seasonal, monthly point of view, you had been predicting a growing number of hurricanes. Now, my question is in the wake of Katrina and some of the statements that we’ve heard immediately afterwards by advocates of the global warming theory – is global warming behind this increase in hurricanes?

Gray: *I am very confident that it’s not.* I mean we have had global warming. That’s not a question. The globe has warmed the last 30 years, and the last 10 years in particular. And we’ve had, at least the last 10 years, we’ve had a pick up in the Atlantic basin major storms. But in the earlier period, if we go back from 1970 through the middle ‘90s, that 25 year period – even though the globe was warming slightly, the number of major storms was down, quite a bit down.

Now, another feature of this is that the Atlantic operates differently. The other global storm basins, the Atlantic only has about 12 percent of the global storms. And in the other basins, the last 10 years – even though the Atlantic major storm activity has gone up greatly the last 10 years. In the other global basins, it’s slightly gone down. You know, both frequency and strength of storms have not changed in these other basins. If anything, they’ve slightly gone down. So if this was a global warming thing, you would think, “Well gee, all of the basins should be responding much the same.”

Glassman: You’re familiar with what your colleagues believe. Do you think many hurricane experts would take a different point of view, and would say, “Oh, it’s global warming that’s causing hurricanes?”

Gray: *No. All my colleagues that have been around a long time – I think if you go to ask the last four or five directors of the national hurricane center – we all don’t think this is human-induced global warming.* And, the people that say that it is are usually those that know very little about hurricanes. I mean, there’s almost an equation you can write the degree to which you believe global warming is causing major hurricanes to increase is inversely proportional to your knowledge about these storms.

Hurricanes and Global Warming: Interview with Meteorologist Dr. William Gray by James K. Glassman -- Capitalism Magazine


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Sinks' yous did'nt like that purty grafx?
I's a mean it's like a hards to descrip all's that coppieng ang a pastyed you's been doin' - you'll likes a right winget MacDooc ors a somethin'.... 
I's a almust sures that yus agot little cooompreehnesion of what's a beeeing said...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Interesting to note that when a noted scientist disagrees global warming is caused by humans, the only comeback is so lame. Methinks Macfury was right:



Macfury said:


> SINC: Don't you love it when these carbon ninnies glom on to a heat wave somewhere, then claim that it supports their theories? The only times local phenomena don't count is when the data works against them.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

One thinks that you Sir, you’d be able to see that all the arguments that you put forth are BS. The one about computer modeling (and that simple little graphic) should have been enough for you to realize that you are, have been, and likely will always be wrong.

Now you have one global warming skeptic that we have already discussed. You trot out these hackneyed and old quotes as if you had no clue what you are talking about – just climate change deniers copy/pasted links to try and show that “your side” is erudite. 

Is like watching sleight of hand done by a blind man with only half his fingers and no sleeves. Utterly predictable and pathetic and usually underscored by a faith based belief that he’s a genius…


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

You are also likely to be blinded to the fact that the good Dr. does not deny Global Warming, what is being debated are the details. Seems to be good science (as it should) and not this willy-nilly pandering to those of your less informed ilk…


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Why is it that when a noted scientist who specializes in weather prediction disagrees with your side it becomes BS? That's really lame.

I've never denied global warming either, just its cause and severity.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Why is it that when a noted scientist who specializes in weather prediction disagrees with your side it becomes BS? That's really lame.


Ah SINC, he'll still have to prove his theories until then, it is only opinion.
Amazing that, he's just like every scientists in that respect...


Psst: he specializes in the science of forecasting hurricanes....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Psst: he specializes in the science of forecasting hurricanes....


Pssst: Which GHG alarmists continue to state will be more frequent and violent than ever. They are of course not more frequent and the good doctor and his colleagues says we humans don't cause global warming.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

It's amazing how you try and confuse matters.
Here is what Global Change scientists have said about Global Warming and Hurricanes...


> *Climate myths: Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming*
> The chaotic nature of weather makes it impossible to prove that any single event such as Hurricane Katrina is due to global warming. It is also impossible to prove that global warming did not play a part, so debates about the causes of individual events are futile.
> 
> It is possible, however, to determine whether global warming is increasing the frequency or intensity of extreme events. It is a bit like throwing dice: getting one six proves nothing, but if sixes keep coming up more often than the other numbers, you know the dice is loaded.
> ...


Climate myths: Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming - climate-change - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment


The only one that is overly alarmist and dramatic is you SINC - I'm not sure if it's caused by ignorance or playing with the facts.... I suspect the first. Wahh, wahh, wahh ASS insulted me again...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Good article. It says it all for me:

"Researchers studying past activity are also only too aware of the shortcomings of the databases. For example, the techniques for measuring storm intensity have changed dramatically over the past 30 years. On the fundamental question of whether global warming is affecting tropical cyclones, the WMO group decided: “no firm conclusion can be made at this point"."


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

So you are ready to believe this particular article, but not the rest of what they write - cherry picker.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Like I keep telling you, I don't deny the earth is warming. That is a known. What I do not agree with are the conclusions being drawn as to cause and cure. Humans contribute to in a very minor way, but do not cause global warming. As for the proposed cures out there, most are driven by companies who wish to fleece the public and make a fortune on spreading fear.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Humans contribute to in a very minor way, but do not cause global warming. As for the proposed cures out there, most are driven by companies who wish to fleece the public and make a fortune on spreading fear.


This is where you are dead wrong.
And those wanting to fleece the public, we'll I'd be pointing a finger at the climate change deniers and the oil trust.... they want to keep 'effing up the planet and not be accountable for their actions.



> Climate change sceptics sometimes claim that many leading scientists question climate change. Well, it all depends on what you mean by "many" and "leading". For instance, in April 2006, 60 "leading scientists" signed a letter urging Canada's new prime minister to review his country's commitment to the Kyoto protocol.
> 
> This appears to be the biggest recent list of sceptics. Yet many, if not most, of the 60 signatories are not actively engaged in studying climate change: some are not scientists at all and at least 15 are retired.
> 
> ...


- from a source SINC found credible a few post back...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

There is nothing credible about Kyoto. Impossible goals signed by Liberals who made no attempt to even try.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Wonder when you will "evolve" from asinine beliefs....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

China, U.S. are key to Kyoto:

“The implications for Canada, which emits about 2% of all greenhouse gases, are huge.
We could wreck our economy trying to comply with Kyoto up to 2012 and it won't make any difference, unless the U.S. and China can be convinced to come on board. Remember that the next time our politicians, of all stripes, start yelling at each other about global warming.”

edmontonsun.com - Commentary - China, U.S. are key to Kyoto


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Like I said, stop paying your taxes - your contribution is minimal compared to the rest...
Hey, if we really want to help, let's stop exporting all tar sand products to the US and importing goods from China.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: I believe most people would stop paying their taxes if they didn't fear prosecution. A very bad analogy.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> AS: I believe most people would stop paying their taxes if they didn't fear prosecution. A very bad analogy.


So are you saying that Canada did not ratify the Kyoto protocol?

I know the Connies are doing their best to ignore that. 
I also hear that in some countries torture is legal - should we also go down that road?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What I say is that watching how even the sanctimonious European signatories are failing to meet their commitments--indeed most signatories--the agreement is not an agreement at all.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Official GHG emissions data:
GHG emission profiles for Annex I Parties

Energy-related emissions data (bottom left):
EIA - Energy Emissions Data & Environmental Analysis of Energy Data

Generally, a couple of the leading European countries have held their per capita emissions around the same level, and are having trouble making progress relative to what they already had in the early-to-mid 1990s. Even the U.S. has a close to stable per capita number. Japan is starting to lose ground. Canada has a horrid record.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

*There goes another one.....*



> 'No Sun link' to climate change
> 
> A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm
Another myth that the deniers like to put forth laid to rest...
I bet that our merry band of deniers will continue to use "cosmic ray hypothesis"..


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Save our Fish – Reduce CO2 Emissions and End Global Warming Today!
> Posted by B.A. Ware on July 12, 2007 in Environment
> 
> Global warming is killing cold water fish and may cause countries to impose bans on fishing. These warnings have been fired at fishermen for years, but how valid are they? Is the gradual rise in the earth’s temperature really a threat to cold water fish? Is the discovery of hundreds of dead fish washing up on the shores of Raritan Bay New Jersey a sign that the days of recreational and commercial fishing are numbered?
> ...


Bounty Fishing Blog » Save our Fish â€“ Reduce CO2 Emissions and End Global Warming Today!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Changing Climate Will Challenge Northeast Agriculture, Expert Warns
> 
> Science Daily — Farmers will be the first to feel the heat from global warming as they grapple with new and aggressive crop pests, summer heat stress and other sobering challenges that could strain family farms to the limit, warns David Wolfe, a Cornell expert on the effects of climate change on agriculture.
> 
> ...


ScienceDaily: Changing Climate Will Challenge Northeast Agriculture, Expert Warns

I would like to see a massive effort for that carbon sink method for soil enrichment. That would seem to be low hanging fruit and the scale is enormous.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

*The Great Global Warming Swindle*

Our global warming deniers (of whatever name they are calling themselves this week) should find this interview with Martin Durkin (he made the movie).

As written on desmogblog should be called: "Tony Jones massacres any shred of credibility Durkin may have had left. It's a total train-wreck." 
http://www.desmogblog.com/video-abc-australias-tony-jones-dissects-debunks-martin-durkin


Finally some journalism...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Paying NOW.....



> *Extreme weather brings flood chaos round the world*
> 
> * 18:40 30 July 2007
> 
> ...


Extreme weather brings flood chaos round the world - earth - 30 July 2007 - New Scientist Environment

Quite the litany :-(


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Amid the scare tactics shines one bit of truth from the article:

"While single events cannot be linked to climate change, the flooding come as research suggests that global warming will increase rainfall in some parts of the world, including the Indian monsoon, and increase the number of hurricanes – both due increased evaporation in a warmer world."

The terms, "cannot be linked", "some parts of the world" and "research suggests" are for once included amid the doom and gloom.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

*Maybe something more definitive....*



> The world's rainfall patterns are changing, and they are doing so because of human-caused climate change, a new study finds.
> 
> *Environment Canada researchers* analyzed global rainfall patterns over land from 1925 to 1999, breaking it down into bands of 10 degrees in latitude. The bulk of Canada's landmass sits between the 40th and 70th parallels.
> 
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...ainfall_report_070723/20070723?hub=TopStories

I wonder if they still have their jobs....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sinc world view....










••••

Meanwhile in Italy



> Climate change threatens Italy's Po River delta
> 
> Tue Jul 17, 2:04 PM ET
> 
> ...


war footing Sinc...got it yet?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I see, we're gonna drop the war on terrorism and start a war on weather.

Now that is really stupid. Ma Nature will win every time.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Air pollution is a widely (universally?) accepted problem in some regions of the world. We know that we can change the air and have known for a long time. I guess the great difficulty is in making the leap to changing things that we cannot directly see. The more abstract, the more challenging. Or, more to the real point, the more that it actually requires change, the more challenging. 

Going along with vast concepts, such as the size of the universe or our ability to alter the whole biosphere -- things that have no daily implication -- is easy. If someone wants to suggest that my actions cause more damage than I can see right now, then I will cross my arms, shake my head and stamp my feet in opposition. Mad googling skillz will come in handy at this point -- skills that can always generate quotes to support what one Knows to be True -- as a surrogate for thinking. 

"I think therefore I am" is trumped by "I know therefore I google."

By the way, it's about time this thread got to the next page.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> I see, we're gonna drop the war on terrorism and start a war on weather.


The war on terrorism is a farce.
I don't see anyone saying we need a war on the weather. Just that we have to curb man-made destruction of the environment...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> The war on terrorism is a farce.


And a war on weather isn't? Gimme a break. Ma Nature will slap you down in a heartbeat.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> I don't see anyone saying we need a war on the weather. Just that we have to curb man-made destruction of the environment...


This coming from a supporter of Nascar, or were you only thinking about going to the Montreal race to protest?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> This coming from a supporter of Nascar, or were you only thinking about going to the Montreal race to protest?


I was going to laugh at all Conservative supporters of course  

The race will happen with or without my support. Being environmentally aware does not mean that you have to turn into some sandal wearing earth muffin....

SINC, not that I would call YOU an idiot, but your distortion of a war on weather is typical of the nattering of those that just don't understand. It induces eye-rolling because of its stupidity. Puerile arguments (if they even should be called that) are basically crassly perverting any real dialogue.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> SINC, a war on weather is typical of the nattering of those that just don't understand. It induces eye-rolling because of its stupidity.


Agreed. That is exactly what I said.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Nice edit - but not what I wrote.
Revisionist on top of it all I see...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Nice edit - but not what I wrote.
> Revisionist on top of it all I see...





ArtistSeries said:


> SINC, not that I would call YOU an idiot, but your distortion of a war on weather is typical of the nattering of those that just don't understand. It induces eye-rolling because of its stupidity.


OK, no edit in the sentence and it is still exactly what I said and applies both ways. Any war against mother nature is stupid. You can't beat or change the weather.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> The race will happen with or without my support.


So is air polution, but I don't see the same defeatest attitude about that. Ah, the war on weather, where everyone but me has to change their lifestyle. :clap:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sinc apparently STILL does not comprehend the difference between climate and weather. But we impact BOTH.....



> *Heat Islands, the city's impact on local weather*
> 
> While most folks know that it s always hotter in the city, few have heard of a term called Urban Heat Islands. It is a term now associated with Atlanta and may soon be associated with other large cities. Recent studies have shown that not only are cities hotter, but they affect the weather around them.This urban localized weather is known as heat islands.
> 
> ...



Human influence.....everywhere you turn....larger scale - climate and weather.



> *The Dust Bowl:
> Could it Happen Again?*
> John Russell Pursell
> Academic affiliation: Oklahoma State University
> ...


and world scale....




> 1. What is desertification?
> 
> *Desertification is the persistent degradation of dryland ecosystems by variations in climate and human activities.* Home to a third of the human population in 2000, drylands occupy nearly half of Earth’s land area. Across the world, desertification affects the livelihoods of millions of people who rely on the benefits that dryland ecosystems can provide.
> 
> ...


Desertification: Scientific Facts on Desertification

Desertified Sinc


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> So is air polution, but I don't see the same defeatest attitude about that. Ah, the war on weather, where everyone but me has to change their lifestyle. :clap:


There are norms in place for air pollution - and if we look at the example of acid rains, we have done something about that.

Just because Nascar is running this weekend does not negate the steps that I have taken. How do you know that I have not changed my lifestyle?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Being a supporter of the GHG's is causing global warming craze while being a fan of Nascar is like a vegetarian that eats meat. So we all should reduce our carbon footprint to help our fight agaist global warming but still be able to enjoy the useless sport of car racing. Forget about the waste of gas, but also remember the tires, oil and car parts they go through for one race. 

I don't care how you've changed your lifestyle, I just hate the hypocritical preaching on this board. All of this finger pointing and we have to do something now attitude is a bunch of hot air. Especially when people who do this support things like Nascar and pedestrian trips to the moon.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The mistake is that thinking something should be reduced means that one should eliminate every possible instance of it in their own life. Sort of like caring about air quality meaning that one should not drive or take the bus or get food delivered or...you get the idea. 

Maybe another example is helpful: thinking that buying "Canadian" is preferable means that buying any imports (unless 100% necessary) or things made using imports is wrong.

The one does not follow from the other. That is not to say there should be no consideration, but don't sweat the petty stuff. As a side note, do not pet the sweaty stuff either.*

*Paraphrase of Steven Wright


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Just love that Stelmach - .....we can **** upriver of the drinking water all we want as long as it makes money........ 



> *Climate change tops premiers' meeting agenda*
> Updated Wed. Aug. 8 2007 9:54 AM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


boom???......more like Canada's shame.

what was the Pembina study - $1.50 a barrel for zero carbon production. Oil is averaging what?? $70 a barrel.......shame indeed.

A British study sees the potential of zero carbon in 20 years for Merrie Olde.........not just lower - ZERO.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> A British study sees the potential of zero carbon in 20 years for Merrie Olde.........not just lower - ZERO.


Mind explaining just how GB can attain zero? That is physically impossible and just so much BS.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Stelmach: He is, even beyond the environment file, disappointing to date. It is still early for him, but things are not encouraging.

Oil sands: MD, you should stop using the $1.50 figure as a, "fact". The Pembina report had an estimate range that exceeded $13 per barrel. So it could be that low eventually, but not in the near-term except through offsets. It could even be lower, as cited in the report, depending upon how much you assume offsets cost. It could also be much higher. Cost concerns related to the sequestration technology itself are already being raised, but the potential worldwide is quite large.

Zero: I have heard of a goal to have net-zero houses in the UK but they have not figured out how to do it at reasonable costs yet. They can, however, get close but that is on new homes, not all homes. As for the potential for zero for the whole country in 20 years...the price tag on that would be interesting, as would the assumptions. 

Credibility: Let's not resort to "denier quality" claims just because they sound like they make our case. Anyone with google can refer to reports that claim this whole topic is a hoax...copying such a low standard is not a good idea, in my opinion.

GreenBiz News | Report: U.K. Can Go Carbon Free in 20 Years

If you want, you could go through precisely how the 'zero' is achieved, and how realistic the assumptions are as well as what the costs would be. Or we could all just swap reports and news clips that favour one opinion or another with no real analysis.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

By Lorne Gunter

As a harsh critic of Alberta's new premier, Ed Stelmach, it's only fair that I be among the first to point out when he does something right, too.
And at this week's annual premiers' meeting in Moncton, Stelmach performed admirably, particularly when a couple of his grandstanding colleagues tried to paint Alberta as Canada's environmental Snidely Whiplash, prepared to tie the country to the railroad tracks in front of the onrushing Global Warming Express to make a profit.
The biggest grandstander (and hypocrite) was Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty. He's facing an election this fall. In order to win it, he has to hold on to his party's seats in Ottawa and Toronto, hotbeds of environmental concern. So McGuinty has to be seen to be a greenhouse-emissions tough guy.
He was the most vigorous proponent of a national cap-and-trade scheme whereby all provinces would decide by how much carbon dioxide emissions needed to be cut, then provinces over their limit could buy credits from provinces that were under their limits.
Not by coincidence, such a plan would end up transferring billions from Alberta to other provinces, including Ontario.
Without ever mentioning Alberta by name, McGuinty still singled us. He said Ontario would not go it alone and make emission reductions unless the biggest emitters agree to do so, too. Alberta is the only bigger CO2-emitter in the country.
McGuinty added that the richer provinces might have to make bigger economic sacrifices for the good of the whole country's environment. Since Ontario is slowly slipping into "have-not" status, it's a no-brainer who he meant by "richer." McGuinty faces another problem. One of his province's biggest employers is the auto industry. His party does well in auto-belt ridings.
But the North American car industry is stalled. One of the fastest ways to curb greenhouse emissions would be to limit tailpipe emissions in Canada to levels recently adopted by California. That would cost billions in expensive refits for Ontario auto plants, however, and North American automakers might just decide to shutter Ontario plants rather than modify them to make lower-emission vehicles.
It's a chance McGuinty can't afford to take. So instead of agreeing to tougher tailpipe standards, the Ontario premier tried to offload the blame on Alberta.
But as Premier Stelmach rightly said, "Alberta's boom is Canada's boom." He might also have said Alberta's energy is Canada's energy; the carbon dioxide released in Alberta while producing the energy that will consumed in other provinces is not Alberta's problem alone.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourn....html?id=85dfcd38-2fdb-4433-b459-f9908d57a9af


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

McGuinty is an ass, I can't wait 'till we get rid of him. He's been pointing his finger in every direction but his own his whole time. How about those coal power plants you didn't close either, who's fault was that? GHG tough-guy, I think not.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sure - $1.50 a barrel to zero out the carbon production cost of the oil sands according to Alberta's own Pembina Institute and Stelmach still wants to **** up river.

McGuinty has a problem bringing online enough clean fuel facilities ( yes he's dawdled ) to replace the coal plant.

Stelmach authorizes a new coal plant without making it zero carbon...just who is the bigger ass.

I haven't a lot of sympathy for the auto industry situation as it's much of their own making but he does have to balance off risk of job loss as the North American big three contract.

Bottom line tho there is one province that has the dollars to do something about its horrendous pollution-fueled boom....that's Alberta.....and it isn't. 
It's an ongoing disgrace no matter how much rose water you try to pour on it. It stinks..literally and figuratively.
A boom based on sewage...how.......odious.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Maybe true MD, but still doesn't explain McGuinty's plan of action/inaction. He is full of hot air, and I hope people see through all of that, McGuinty+Election Promises=Lies!

As for the auto industry, 90% of all jobs in Canada are in the service industry, I don't know why we are still catering to Buzz and his gang. If Ontario is to get tough on GHG it has start here.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Bottom line tho there is one province that has the dollars to do something about its horrendous pollution-fueled boom....that's Alberta.....and it isn't.
> It's an ongoing disgrace no matter how much rose water you try to pour on it. It stinks..literally and figuratively.
> A boom based on sewage...how.......odious.


I guess you missed this part:

"It is ridiculous to think that Alberta would produce the emissions it does without demand for our energy from consumers right across the country.
If Ontario drivers were not demanding gasoline that is refined from our oil, we wouldn't be producing so much carbon dioxide getting that oil out of the ground.
So a driver in McGuinty's province is not merely responsible for the emissions that come from burning gas in his car's engine, he is also responsible for the carbon released extracting the oil used to produce his gasoline. Alberta's emissions are Canada's emissions."

You ready to shut down your vehicles, or should we shut down the oil patch? And if we have to pay for the clean up, will you come to the table with your share? Or will you just keep using our oil and bitchin' about it?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

"So a driver in McGuinty's province is not merely responsible for the emissions that come from burning gas in his car's engine, he is also responsible for the carbon released extracting the oil used to produce his gasoline."

Not true. Sinc why do you so quickly accept such an argument but have difficulty figuring out how offsets work? Oh yeah, I remember, it has nothing to do with figuring, just feeling. 1) Establish feeling; 2) Favourably quote only sources that appear to favour the feeling established in one; 3) Ignore all else; 4) Rinse thoughts and repeat. 

Besides, most Alberta oil does not end up in Ontario. 

Also, because we do not have a comprehensive carbon tax system (including covering imports) we get a market disconnect. Drivers do not see the cost of their tailpipe emissions and wholesale prices do not reflect the cost of upstream-to-midstream emissions. 

Were all those accounted for, the price netbacks to the oil sands would be relatively lower (it is one of the more GHG intensive sources) and pump prices would be higher. This looks promising for the oil sands, though:

Petrobank Energy - Heavy Oil - THAI™ Technology


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

That's just it Beej. Offsets do nothing to reduce output. They are money for a guilty conscience and nothing more. Same amount of GHGs remain, payment made or not.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> That's just it Beej. Offsets do nothing to reduce output. They are money for a guilty conscience and nothing more. Same amount of GHGs remain, payment made or not.


If consumers of oil sands end-use products (Albertan, Ontarian, U.S. motorists) got together and paid to sequester the CO2 from an oil sands plant (bought an offset) then...Sinc you still would not get it. 

Cheers to your feelings as you strive not to misrepresent them as "figuring" or logic or any such thing.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> If consumers of oil sands end-use products (Albertan, Ontarian, U.S. motorists) got together and paid to sequester the CO2 from an oil sands plant (bought an offset) then...Sinc you still would not get it.


That would be investing in a new technology to reduce GHG output, not buying carbon credits and sending money to non polluting countries. Big difference.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> That would be investing in a new technology to reduce GHG output, not buying carbon credits and sending money to non polluting countries. Big difference.


That's one of the parts you do not get (liberal usage of steps 3 and 4 above). You're mixing up the old, "Russian Hot Air" credits with mechanisms like CDM. Not all offsets are credible, but some are very much the same as a bunch of people getting together and paying to install a fancy dohicky that gets real GHG emissions reductions. Whether it be Ontarians investing in Alberta or Albertans investing in Bangladesh should not bother you. But overuse of steps 3 and 4 can cause damage.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

As can being gullible to the spin of big business and GHG fanatics.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> As can being gullible to the spin of big business and GHG fanatics.


Problem is, you identify gullible as someone simply thinking differently than where your feelings leave you. Almost everytime that I've dragged you along for a ride in "logic town" you have demonstrated that you "jus knows what you knows" and that you do not actually think things through. Thus, because you cannot admit that thinking people come to different conclusions than your feelings, you must assume them to be "gullible" or "bleeding hearts" etc. It would be easier just to lay out your logic and thought process to see where we differ...were there one for you to lay out.

I'm not sure why you like to do your little dance, but it is at least funny so I appreciate that part. Now do a little dance!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

You can't "drag" me anywhere. When one fervently believes that an artificial atmosphere of fear is being spun, one does not buy the science available to date. Too many "ifs" to suit me, thus my viewpoint.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> You can't "drag" me anywhere.


Sinc, watching you dance yourself into a corner when attempting to "argue" your point of view instead of just admitting when it is a feeling (as it often is) is quite fun. I have, on numerous occasions, dragged you to and through "logic town" just to watch your silly dance with the inevitable 'finishing move': "I jus knows what I knows." *jazz hands*

If you do not enjoy entertaining me, then cease with the misrepresentation of your feelings as considered positions based upon evidence and logic. Deep down, I hope you continue as you are...sometimes I just feel like dragging you to a dance and you usually oblige. :love2:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Nothing anyone can do or say will change my mind until I see much more convincing evidence that GHGs are as severe as current science claims. Sure they are real, and sure we should be trying to reduce them, but the hysteria is so unnecessary and ultimately expensive that it has become a religion to some and that only worsens the problem.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Nothing anyone can do or say will change my mind until I see much more convincing evidence that GHGs are as severe as current science claims. Sure they are real, and sure we should be trying to reduce them, but the hysteria is so unnecessary and ultimately expensive that it has become a religion to some and that only worsens the problem.


Is there a climate change denier talking point that you have not latched onto?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Nothing anyone can do or say will change my mind until I see much more convincing evidence that GHGs are as severe as current science claims. Sure they are real, and sure we should be trying to reduce them, but the hysteria is so unnecessary and ultimately expensive that it has become a religion to some and that only worsens the problem.


The finishing move.

*jazz hands*

"Nothing anyone can do or say will change my mind until I see much more convincing evidence": you have to listen to what people say to evaluate it as evidence, not just cheer on things that sound like you should like them. Ooops!

Regarding hysteria and religion: agreed. As with similar things (ie. war on terror) hysteria leads to overreaction, under-consideration of costs, over-statement of benefits and, during a lull, political support vanishing in an angry flourish. Let's keep this honest.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Regarding hysteria and religion: agreed. As with similar things (ie. war on terror) hysteria leads to overreaction, under-consideration of costs, over-statement of benefits and, during a lull, political support vanishing in an angry flourish. Let's keep this honest.




Nice to see you appreciate some of my moves.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Keep your hands to yourself (semi-inside joke).


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Regarding hysteria and religion: agreed. As with similar things (ie. war on terror) hysteria leads to overreaction, under-consideration of costs, over-statement of benefits and, during a lull, political support vanishing in an angry flourish. *Let's keep this honest*.


Rather difficult given the stern position of some...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Keep your hands to yourself (semi-inside joke).


:lmao: :clap:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Speaking of hands......



> *Flesh-eating Disease Is On The Rise Due To Global Warming, Experts Warn*
> 
> Science Daily — Scientists at the University of Hull are working on an improved treatment for a debilitating flesh-eating disease which appears to be on the rise due to global warming.
> 
> ...


ScienceDaily: Flesh-eating Disease Is On The Rise Due To Global Warming, Experts Warn


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Speaking of hands......
> ScienceDaily: Flesh-eating Disease Is On The Rise Due To Global Warming, Experts Warn[/url]


Oh my, we are clutching at straws now, aren't we? Geez, first thing you know someone will say coffee causes cancer or something because of global warming.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

and West Nile didn't reach Alberta..........


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Oh my, we are clutching at straws now, aren't we? Geez, first thing you know someone will say coffee causes cancer or something because of global warming.


you just keep on sounding like someone from the tobacco lobby
how long did it take for them to finally admit smoking is linked to cancer?
and only after a long and drawn out court battle

i would figure you never thought about how smoking would cause you harm until your coronary incidents

future generations can't afford to wait until our planet has an coronary infarction to deal with the problem


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

SINC said:


> Oh my, we are clutching at straws now, aren't we? Geez, first thing you know someone will say coffee causes cancer or something because of global warming.


Come on Sinc, they don't have much choice, it is either because of Global Warming or Stephen Harper.

I heard the Leafs haven't won the cup in over 30 years was due to Global Warming.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i would figure you never thought about how smoking would cause you harm until your coronary incidents


I see your one track mind, fixated on my coronary issues is still hard at work. Trying to blame them on global warming is ludicrous.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> I see your one track mind, fixated on my coronary issues is still hard at work. Trying to blame them on global warming is ludicrous.


that's what your reporter's keen nose for facts gleaned from my post?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> that's what your reporter's keen nose for facts gleaned from my post?


Exactly. The fixation has become old news and very tiring to continue to hear, post after post.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Toronto blogger turns up NASA climate error

Updated Wed. Aug. 15 2007 11:00 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

A Toronto blogger's number-crunching skills turned up an error in the math NASA used to determine historic temperatures, forcing the agency to own up to an embarrassing mistake.

NASA had said 1998 was the hottest year on record in the U.S. but later revised the statistics, issuing a new list that instead named 1934 as the hottest year on the books.

Toronto-based blogger Steve McIntyre found the error. In a tongue-in-cheek posting on his blog climateaudit.org, he compared the race for the top spot to the leaderboard results from the U.S. Open.

"There has been some turmoil yesterday on the leaderboard of the U.S. (Temperature) Open and there is a new leader," he wrote on Aug. 8.

"Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. 

CTV.ca | Toronto blogger turns up NASA climate error


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

This information is no surprise to the non GHG hysterics. Wonder if it will calm down some of the believers?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: I'm surprised MacDoc didn't post this himself. He's such an enquiring mind, ya know?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Old news..no change



> 10 August 2007
> *1934 and all that*
> Filed under: Instrumental Record Climate Science — gavin @ 5:33 PM
> Another week, another ado over nothing.
> ...


_However, t*here is clearly a latent and deeply felt wish in some sectors for the whole problem of global warming to be reduced to a statistical quirk or a mistake. This led to some truly death-defying leaping to conclusions when this issue hit the blogosphere*. _

Gee sound like ...anyone you know...??

Perhaps look at the numbers for 2006 and 2007.......that climb ain't gonna stop anytime soon but by all means 

Keep digging - - you might need that hole one day.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Reality??....IPCC is indeed likely wrong....but in being too conservative....as the following shows....bottom line.....it's getting hotter, faster than expected.












> These graphs show actual data and 2001 IPCC predictions for: carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere in parts per million (top graph); changes in temperature relative to 1990 temperatures (middle graph); and changes in sea-levels relative to 1990 levels (bottom graph). Dashed lines show 2001 computer model projections (the grey dashed line in the bottom graph includes land ice uncertainty). Solid red and blue lines show actual data, collected from different sources (Image: Science/Rahmstorf et al)
> These graphs show actual data and 2001 IPCC predictions for: carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere in parts per million (top graph); changes in temperature relative to 1990 temperatures (middle graph); and changes in sea-levels relative to 1990 levels (bottom graph). Dashed lines show 2001 computer model projections (the grey dashed line in the bottom graph includes land ice uncertainty). *Solid red and blue lines show actual data*


Sea level rise outpacing key predictions - earth - 01 February 2007 - New Scientist Environment


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Toronto blogger turns up NASA climate error
> 
> 
> CTV.ca | Toronto blogger turns up NASA climate error


Old news...
http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/54484-japan-cant-even-meet-kyoto-target-2.html#post573113

Same comments as before /rinse/ repeat....

Now this data only affect the US (and we all know that the US IS the world, right?).
Now other errors will be found and adjusted.
So now the U.S. has 5 hottest years on before WW2 instead of 4.... and by a margin of error that makes it negligible. 
The howls from deniers is amusing, just goes to show how little they understand - it's amusing to see some distort in a predictable manner this insignificant adjustment.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Just one more of earth's ancient cycles I'm afraid.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Just one more of earth's ancient cycles I'm afraid.


I'd like to see your "proof". You must be one of the planet's most learned man of science going against mountains of proof....
So when will you be getting that Nobel prize? I'm totally in awe at your intellect...  

I'm sure explosive diarrhea has more substance than any "proof" you'll post but I'm really curious to see what a climate change denier can google to justify their own ignorance.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I fail to see why such a simple post results in such a reaction. 

Diarrhea? No, but perhaps constipation is a believer's problem?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: It results in such a reaction because you've offended their religion. Don't upset MacDoc and AS. The Charter protects their religious freedom to believe in disastrous global warming theories.

You'll note that MacDoc didn't post that old IPCC nonsense until the NASA errors were posted here. It's only fascinating to him when his religion is under attack.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MF: Interesting theory you have there considering they are atheists. Or has that now become a religion? If so they must be applying for church tax status, non?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I guess some like to stubbornly perpetuate nonsense. The perennial question for SINC, is do you have any proof to back up your claims or will you just continue the Rovian nonsense of denying without backing up your claims.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

And I guess some like to stubbornly perpetuate vile personal attacks. I owe you nothing. No explanation. Nothing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: Pretty funny, AS demanding proof. It's like UFO crackpots demanding others provide proof that they WEREN'T carried away by flying saucers. His house of card is crashing down around his ears and he wants proof that it's really happening.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Good try MF. 
Too bad the bulk of the scientific community does not agree with you. 
In this case it's up to SINC to back up his claims - once again eerily absent...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Good try MF.
> Too bad the bulk of the scientific community does not agree with you.
> In this case it's up to SINC to back up his claims - once again eerily absent...


Will you ever get it?

You hurt me deeply. You are a apparently a vile and vindictive person. Get used to the label. You've earned it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I still want proof about the relevance of that ozone thing. I can't see it, so why believe the, "establishment" line? Bah, CFCs emitted beyond my sphere of daily existence do not, nay, cannot matter. Besides, some zealots went too far with their fear-mongering, therefore the whole thing must be bunk (remind anyone of another current political issue?).

More seriously, I found that data revision to be quite a useful litmus in the nutty blogosphere. Those who understand, within reasonable layman limits, the science, handled it quite well. It was barely relevant. Those that do not understand the science, but feel strongly nonetheless, reacted with sweaty fervour.

I can well understand skepticism, questioning (quite rightly) the calamity-mongers and evaluating the assumptions behind various temperature/impact scenarios (there is quite a range), as well worrying about the policy mechanisms. 

But that's not what I have observed in the 'grassroots' debate. Actually, I meant "debate".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You know Sinc I put up with your asinine attitude and holier than thou attiude about just about long enough.

You dish it out whenever it suits you then whine and cry when you get it back

..do you remember this post???........I do........










*By the way, how did YOUR marriage work out?* ..?????????

Now take your whining about "personal attacks" and stuff them where the sun don't shine. You're just as ready with them as any........

If you want to bring up legitimate climate science issue and have it challenged in this thread by all means do so.

If you have nothing to contribute..and that clearly is the case..then shut up for a while and go play in the flat earth sand box....suits your mental age.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Meanwhile the blogosphere's latest darling



> Thursday, August 16, 2007
> 
> Overturning the "Consensus" in One Fell Swoop


Planet Gore on National Review Online

The trouble with "fell swoops" as pioneer aviators discovered was they end in crashes.
The author to his credit indicates he could be wrong..unlike JS who swallows without examining.



> Sunday, August 19, 2007
> Schwartz' sensitivity estimate
> Via email, I hear that this paper from Stephen Schwartz is making a bit of a splash in the delusionosphere. In it, he purports to show that climate sensitivity is only about 1.1C, with rather small uncertainty bounds of +-0.5C.
> 
> ...


Of course the other small problem is that measured results of global temperatures particularly since 2002 have outstripped even the highest IPCC tracking.

Dramatic claims like "overturning consensus" require equally dramatic and unequivocable proofs......Schwartz' ain't it..


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> ..do you remember this post???........I do........


Certainly I do remember the post. It was a response to the post you made that insulted my wife. To use your normal response, "I respond in kind".


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Doc really got owned on that one SINC--I can't believe he would choose such a bad example to prove his point. But you've insulted the "Earth Mother" Gaia so he's in a tizzy.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I checked the thread from MD's quote and there was not much there. It appears to have been a multi-thread battle. Can either Sinc or MD provide a basis? 

As it stands, I just see a dirty comment by Sinc. Not being a newbie, I understand that grudges move between threads (I like doing that myself, sometimes  ), but I like to judge the original context for myself.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

*Analysis questions Baird's doom-and-gloom warnings about Kyoto*



> *Analysis questions Baird's doom-and-gloom warnings about Kyoto*
> A newly released federal analysis of the impact of Canada’s international climate change obligations suggests senior government experts were at odds with Environment Minister John Baird’s doom and gloom warnings that the Kyoto Protocol would provoke an economic disaster.


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=dbcbaf57-a06d-4ac8-93b1-d2e2fb42b735&k=9030

If I were not so polite, I'd say he's nothing but a liar...

Oh and here are the new talking points from the deniers (same source)
"“We’ve got to get countries like the United States, like China, like India on board (with) efforts to reduce greenhouse gases in a meaningful way,” he said. “Seventy per cent of the world’s emitters were excluded by the Liberals in the previous round. They weren’t successful in getting them on board and that’s a failure.”
- Blame the Liberals and do nothing it seems....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'll admit, the Liberals really made themselves awfully good scapegoats.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Anyone remember Dion's letters to Bouchard that pointed out Separatist follies (and that explicitly raised the untouchable yet obviously credible idea of a divisible Quebec)? Dion is doing it again:
http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/070823_carbon_letter_en.pdf

.............................
1. The best way to reduce carbon emissions is to put a price on them. As long as these emissions are uncosted externalities they will not be tackled with the full strength and ingenuity of the free market. That is what business leaders tell us too.

2. We need to focus on the short, medium and long term. We need a clear price signal on carbon over an extended period of time. The cost of atmospheric dumping should escalate over time in as predictable a way as possible.

3. We must use 1990 as a baseline against which to measure progress, just as the rest of the world does.

4. Emission growth above Kyoto targets should have a price per tonne that drives required investment in green energy and emission reductions.

5. We also agreed on reinvesting funds in the province that the emissions payments come from – so, for example, funds paid by greenhouse gas producers in Alberta stay in Alberta.

6. Finally, we also agreed on a way for large industrial polluters to pay their obligations into a green investment account so they can earn back these payments toward carbon eduction projects that will bring efficiency dividends for years to come.
.............................

1- Yes
2- Cut the first sentence. It is meaningless and sounds Martin-ish anyways.
3- In and of itself, largely meaningless but it would help with public discourse.
4- Sounds like cap-and-trade. A second best solution. Oh well, c'est la vie.
5- Canadian political reality.
6- A nice alternative when the timelines are sensible.


This is not new stuff but the tone of the release is different than most Canadian political theatre.

To a certain extent -- and allowing for the beejacon in the details -- it is the Cons that are offside with some big industries on some of this stuff. 

Plenty of room for change on this policy file, in case people thought that it was over for now with Baird's plan. 

But...the opposition will have to grow at least one collective pair.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> .............................
> 1. The best way to reduce carbon emissions is to put a price on them. As long as these emissions are uncosted externalities they will not be tackled with the full strength and ingenuity of the free market. That is what business leaders tell us too.
> 
> 2. We need to focus on the short, medium and long term. We need a clear price signal on carbon over an extended period of time. The cost of atmospheric dumping should escalate over time in as predictable a way as possible.
> ...


1 - Okay but I think that large polluters will pass it directly to consumers even if they are uber profitable...
2- What the Beej said
3- Disagree with Beej. The Connies are changing the baseline year they are using in their metrics. It should be 1990 as a baseline.
4- I'm okay with it
5- Unless those funds are not needed there (if the province achieve a neutrality)
6- I'll defer to the Beej


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That Dion--he's really getting me excited with talk like that!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> 1 - Okay but I think that large polluters will pass it directly to consumers even if they are uber profitable...
> 
> 3- Disagree with Beej. The Connies are changing the baseline year they are using in their metrics. It should be 1990 as a baseline.


Their profit has little to do with it. In the end, the consumer will pay for the related 'externalities' of the products they use, just like current excise taxes. 

The difficulty comes with imports and exports because each jurisdiction is handling this differently. As an extreme example, governments will want to avoid policies that just result in the U.S. lining their border with formerly Canadian industries selling the same old products into Canada that they stopped producing in Canada due to GHG fees. That's clearly worse for the planet, but reality usually does not leave things that clear.

I think we agree on 3. There is no inherent meaning because the starting point of the target is simply a way to describe the target itself in relative terms. It is useful for public discourse, for now, because it allows for some sort of comparison to what other provinces and countries are doing. Eventually an inherently meaningful basis (ie. per capita) will need to be used.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Double.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Incredible. AS has been won over to the Liberal side of this issue. Bravo Beej! A Herculean task!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Historic Drought Conditions Trigger TVA Fuel Cost Adjustment
> posted August 16, 2007
> 
> Historic drought conditions across the Tennessee Valley during the past seven months have cut TVA’s least expensive generation resource, hydropower, by more than 40 percent and triggered a fuel cost adjustment announced Thursday.
> ...


8/16/2007 - Historic Drought Conditions Trigger TVA Fuel Cost Adjustment - Breaking News - Chattanoogan.com













> Drought may cost grocery buyers
> By JESSICA KLIPA
> [email protected]
> 
> ...


Bradenton.com | 08/10/2007 | Drought may cost grocery buyers



> *Drought declared a disaster by the U.S.*
> 
> But federal move may give little relief to state's farmers
> 
> ...


Drought declared a disaster by the U.S. -- baltimoresun.com



> *Record breaking August a certainty
> 
> Back in early August I posted here that August 2007 could potentially break all-time heat records (dating back over 100 years) in the Mid-South. And with only eight days to go in the month, it is certain that the all-times records will not just be broken but smashed in many locations.*


...fiddles at ready...the conflagration has begun....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yes folks...it's a drought.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Wasn't there one back in the 30s MF? That would make it before global warming, would it not?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yes, SINC I believe you're right--Henry Fonda was there I think.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That melting ice cube you are standing on is being deserted in droves......

got your survial suits handy



> Bush aide says warming man-made
> By Roger Harrabin
> Environment analyst, BBC News
> 
> ...


one more gets head out of ....err sand.



> _The CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and there's no end point, *it just gets hotter and hotter*_


oh reaallllllyyy  ...how sage...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sweet. Decry the Bush Administration for everything it presents, then suddenly agree with it when convenient,


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *191 nations accelerate limits on threats to ozone*
> Reuters
> Published: September 22, 2007
> 
> ...


:clap: ...more please...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

on the other hand



> *Harper's climate change plan gets flunking grade*
> Updated Fri. Sep. 21 2007 8:22 PM ET
> 
> The Canadian Press
> ...


CTV.ca | Harper's climate change plan gets flunking grade


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Still haven't learned?

13 years of ZERO Liberal climate control action and you can't figure out why Harper is in tough?

Best you return to history class and read up on do nothing Liberals versus the Conservatives at least trying to do something.

If you can't get your mind around that simple fact, you'll continue to gloat over your own party of preference's failure.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Still haven't learned?
> 
> 13 years of ZERO Liberal climate control action and you can't figure out why Harper is in tough?
> 
> ...


Drink ConKoolAid much?
The Connies have opposed any control on GHG from the time they were in opposition to the farcical "intensity based" targets. 
When caught off guard by the public reaction to some of the public reaction, they quickly recycled some elements of Liberal actions. 

You'd have more credibility SINC if you did not try to pass the Connies as some kind of green saviours...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> You'd have more credibility SINC if you did not try to pass the Connies as some kind of green saviours...


My point is simple. The Conservatives are trying, which is more than any Liberal government did in their 13 years in power, most recently right in your back yard:

The governments of 191 countries have reached a "historic"*agreement to eliminate the production and use of ozone-depleting hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) 10 years ahead of schedule, Environment Minister John Baird said Saturday.
Delegates at an international conference held in Montreal first announced the deal to change the timetable late Friday.
Under the agreement, developed countries who signed on to the Montreal Protocol in 1987 will phase out production and use of HCFCs by 2020, instead of 2030. The phase-out for developing countries was moved from 2040 to 2030.
"The agreement to speed up the elimination of HCFCs will go down in the books as another successful chapter in the Montreal Protocol's proud and historic history," Baird told reporters, adding the deal will "stand out as a pivotal moment in the international fight against global warming."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/09/22/hcfc-environment.html?ref=rss


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: Don't even try. Some people have hitched their carts to that tired old horse Dion and have warm, fuzzy memories of Prime Minister Martin. Would you take a teddy bear away from a sleeping child? Leave them to their rest.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Let me get this straight – you are praising a deal passed in 1987 that resembles (or is the framework) for the Kyoto protocol? 
I’d like to remind you that your favourite climate change denier (your too often quoted Tim Ball) is often guilty of thrashing the “Montreal Protocol”- so does this mean that one day you’ll come around to the Kyoto Protocol? Seems that you distancing yourself from your guru…

Funny how Harper and fiends are trying to take credit for the Montreal Protocal when they have been hostile to it: Harper even told the UN to look somewhere else to host the 20th anniversary event. 

Harper is governing by polls – all this talk about them trying in balderdash. 

The cons are a joke when you consider that the environment watchdog has accused Harper of lying and exaggerating on its climate-change joke and the government is being sued for not following the law in the implementation of the Kyoto Plan.


P.S. MF, I support the BQ, not Dion.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> P.S. MF, I support the BQ, not Dion.


I wasn't talking about you, AS! 

I like some of the BQ's laissez-faire politrical ideas, though!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Fresh crisis for farmers as new virus strikes*
> 
> · First case of bluetongue found on rare breeds farm
> · Chief vet urges vigilance for 'devastating' disease
> ...


costly that......


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *The Earth is out of time*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


..get on with it.....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Here is some rather interesting data from a letter to the editor in yesterday's Edmonton Journal:

*124 years of local weather data don’t support global warming . . .*

Hardly a day goes by when The Journal does not contain one or more news stories about climate change and global warming. While the evidence presented by scientists is indisputable, particularly concerning our Arctic regions, what are the facts for central Alberta?

As a naturalist concerned about the recent decline of Beaverhills Lake, I wondered: Have our summers really become hotter and dryer?

To investigate how much precipitation the Edmonton area actually receives, I researched the records on Environment Canada’s website. I went back 124 years to 1883.

I found that the records show little or no change in today’s precipitation levels and average temperatures.

The data for the past 46 years are from the meteorological station at Edmonton International Airport. Before that measurements were taken inside the city itself.

Of course, daily amounts of rain and snow can vary greatly between localities only a few kilometres apart.

There is also uncertainty about the methods used to convert snow into water. As a rule of thumb, 10 centimetres of snow equals one centimetre of liquid. In fact, the moisture content of snow varies, making visual estimates imprecise. Nevertheless, the occasional small mistake is levelled out in the 124 years of data.

The all-time mean annual precipitation for Edmonton is 454 millimetres. From year to year, the data vary, with the most being 745 mmin 1900 and the least 207 mm in 1889. Apparently, the weather was just as capricious then as it is now.

The data also show that precipitation in recent years has been low. In fact, the second lowest annual total — 267 mm — fell in 2002. The year was a killer, with city trees dying, crops withering south and east of Edmonton, and pastures turning to dust. In addition, 2001 and 2003 were below the long-term mean.

Before concluding that the most recent 10 years were unusually dry from a historical perspective, I organized 120 years of records into 12 blocks of 10 years each. The differences are now insignificant, with all annual precipitation averages very close to the norm of 454 mm.

Furthermore, seven decades received a little more than an average of 454 mm per year and five a bit less. The largest average — 517 mm — dates from 1900-1909. But the preceding decade of 1890-1899 had the lowest average precipitation, at 427 mm per year.

Although the most recent 10 years, 2006-1997, received below average 436 mm per year, this was more than in the 1890s and 1920s, and only three mmless than the 1960s. The conclusion is clear: The most recent 10 years were dry, but not exceptionally so.

Of course, there are other factors that can worsen a drought, such as wind and temperature, which influence evaporation rates. Were the recent summers perhaps hotter than in the past?

Environment Canada records give the annual mean minimum and maximum temperatures over the past 124 years.

For the most recent 10-year period, from 1997-2006, the mean minimum was 2.7 degrees Celsius and the mean maximum was 9.1. This compares with 2.8 and 8.9 degrees for the 50 earliest years that have complete records, beginning in 1890.

The differences are minuscule. Evidently, based on these official and unassailable data, our most recent 10 years were definitely not warmer than average, as compared to our known past.

The 124 years of precipitation data were analyzed statistically by a mathematician. He reported that the regression line is flat with three cyclic highs roughly 40 years apart.

Currently, we are in a down period. The only one who can reverse that is Mother Nature herself.

Dick Dekker, Edmonton


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm just glad that MacDoc has announced that the world is finally out of time. No more need for him to post here then.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Here is some rather interesting data from a letter to the editor in yesterday's Edmonton Journal:
> 
> *124 years of local weather data don’t support global warming . . .*



That's got to be the funniest headline I've read in a long time.

"X years of _*local*_ data doesn't correlate with _*global*_ data."

That someone could publish this unironically astounds me. Next thing you know they'll be telling us that hundreds of short people aren't tall.

Amazing.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The internet is a remarkable invention for sharing information of all kinds!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The internet is a remarkable invention for sharing information of all kinds!


Or in your case disinformation and obfuscation...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

They can't "afford" $2 a barrel to go carbon free but can **** away $2 billion a year in royalties....

Corrupt, mismanaged, an embarrassment.



> Alberta giving up billions in oil cash, AG says
> Updated Mon. Oct. 1 2007 9:47 PM ET
> 
> The Canadian Press
> ...


I wonder what Norway's oil fund is at now $300 billion maybe.

and these were the clowns crowing about fiscal management.....what a stupid, expensive, inept joke.
No wonder they like Bush.....fellow bumblers.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MD, the number of mistakes and warping of understanding in your short post (excluding the article) is astounding, particularly considering that I've explained them to you before. You like the pithy comment over the accurate, clearly. You do yourself a disservice but do put on a nice show. 

That said, the royalty news is largely correct. I do not think that panel's recommendations were as sensible as they could have been, but the general conclusions are accurate.

This may not be: "Dunn said that as far back as three years ago..."


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> "X years of local data doesn't correlate with global data."


and here I thought Toronto was the centre of the universe...
now I find out it's Edmonton or is it "central Alberta?"


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Alberta oil thirst leading to disaster: author
> 
> Updated Tue. Oct. 9 2007 12:26 PM ET
> 
> ...


..trouble is, it's not only Alberta that will pay the price 

Bush league north.....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Hear that SINC? Y'all stop now...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Meanwhile....one company gets it's "bill"....



> Ohio firm to spend US$4.6B to reduce emissions
> 
> WASHINGTON — Settling an eight-year legal battle, a major power generator has agreed to spend US$4.6 billion to reduce chemical emissions blamed for spreading acid rain across the U.S. Northeast and southeastern Canada.
> 
> ...


while the whole problem accelerates....



> *Economic growth has accelerated greenhouse gas emissions to a level not expected for another decade*
> Oct 09, 2007 01:02 PM
> Associated Press
> 
> ...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Hear that SINC? Y'all stop now...


Not stop, but pay for what you abuse...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Wow the crisis in the NE US over water is incredible. Watch the Slide show.



> *Crisis feared as U.S. water supplies dry up*
> _Government projects at least 36 states will face shortages within five years_
> 
> Steve Nesius / AP
> ...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Can't or won't........Alberta's and Canada's shame......



> *US mayors meet on climate change*
> 
> Mayors applaud during the climate summit in Seattle
> The mayors attending hail from Miami to New Jersey
> ...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Climate wars threaten billions
> 
> *More than 100 countries face political chaos and mass migration in global warming catastrophe*
> 
> ...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Political costs.....coming due...



> Canada's Harper and White House Soon All Alone in anti-Kyoto Land
> 16 Nov 07
> 
> With Australian PM John Howard set to be dethroned in the Nov. 24th Australian election, Canada's Conservative Government led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and President George W Bush will lose their last key ally in their anti-Kyoto Protocol battle.
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Thank goodness two leaders are still holding out against this nonsense.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

f you think the language was strong on the last IPCC report, read the summary report just out.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | UN challenges states on warming



> The IPCC states that *climate change is "unequivocal*" and may bring "*abrupt and irreversible" impacts.*
> 
> Mr Ban urged politicians to respond at a UN climate change conference in Bali.
> 
> ...





> *Climate change is "severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action" can head it off,* a United Nations scientific panel said in a report on global warming issued Saturda





> *Key Findings of UN Scientific Report
> By The Associated Press – 1 hour ago*
> 
> The following are some key findings in a report issued Saturday by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
> ...


The Associated Press: Key Findings of UN Scientific Report


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I guess they're desperate for attention now.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I guess they're desperate for attention now.


The sad truth is you are so entrenched in you denial that no amount of proof will ever sway you. It is a religion with you. Every one around you keeps posting evidence while all you do is spout off the top of your head. Sad really.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Thank goodness two leaders are still holding out against this nonsense.


And thank goodness that these two politicians and the band of fringe cranks who hold similar viewpoints are finally being marginalized by the scientific evidence.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You'll see.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Climate change starting to bite in South America*
> Updated Mon. Nov. 26 2007 8:02 AM ET
> 
> The Associated Press
> ...


CTV.ca | Climate change starting to bite in South America


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Quick!!! Cut them a cheque!!!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bet you had a problem letting go when your pet died.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Natural disasters have quadrupled in two decades: study - Yahoo! News


> Natural disasters have quadrupled in two decades: study
> 
> Sun Nov 25, 9:33 AM ET
> 
> ...


Sometimes I think that the climate deniers know they are full of it and are against intervention because they want the worlds poor under water... 
Notice how they tend to be reactionary and extremely conservative?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Oh yeah, and they also rape babies when everyone's asleep.

_sheesh_... way to generalize.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> You'll see.


I hope to see more delusional statements such as this for Harper



> *PM rejects charge that Canada is 'isolated' in its viewpoint*
> 
> "*I've seen reports that suggest Canada was isolated in this position. That's not remotely true*," the prime minister said as the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting wrapped up yesterday in the Ugandan capital.
> 
> ...


Climate stance 'only right position': PM

So, when asked to name the support, the only country he could name was "Trinidad and Tobago".... 
I'm glad that after two years, he's still blaiming the Liberals for his policies


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Max said:


> Oh yeah, and they also rape babies when everyone's asleep.
> 
> _sheesh_... way to generalize.


I said "sometimes I think".
_sheesh_... way to not read...

Obviously it is not true but how do you explain the "everybody is wrong but me" mentality coming from the deniers? The evidence is so overwhelming and the deniers are the same people who fought CFC bans, because they claimed that that science too, was wrong even though the only evidence they could come up with to support their claims came from industry insiders, while the extreme overwhelming opinion of the rest of the scientists was clear. Just like their current stand on GHGs. The deniers sound like a spoiled teen who refuses to take responsibility for themselves. "It is someone else's fault!" No amount of evidence will ever sway them because their position is based on this belief that everyone is wrong but them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I was hoping we would have flooded Trinidad and Tobago by now. Ah well, put another shrimp on the gas-fired Bar-B.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Toll of climate change on world food supply could be worse than thought*
> 
> Global agriculture, already predicted to be stressed by climate change in coming decades, could go into steep, unanticipated declines in some regions due to complications that scientists have so far inadequately considered, say three new scientific reports.
> 
> ...


cue trained mutt....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

No, that one is too boring to take a nip at.

It speaks once again to our grotesque overpopulation more than anything else. Anyone with more than one child should be ashamed of themselves for bringing this on.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

martman said:


> I said "sometimes I think".
> _sheesh_... way to not read...
> 
> Obviously it is not true but how do you explain the "everybody is wrong but me" mentality coming from the deniers? The evidence is so overwhelming and the deniers are the same people who fought CFC bans, because they claimed that that science too, was wrong even though the only evidence they could come up with to support their claims came from industry insiders, while the extreme overwhelming opinion of the rest of the scientists was clear. Just like their current stand on GHGs. The deniers sound like a spoiled teen who refuses to take responsibility for themselves. "It is someone else's fault!" No amount of evidence will ever sway them because their position is based on this belief that everyone is wrong but them.


Martman
You answered someone criticizing you of stereotyping and gross exaggerations by denying it then quickly adding more gross exaggerations and stereotypes.  

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yep.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Martman
> You answered someone criticizing you of stereotyping and gross exaggerations by denying it then quickly adding more gross exaggerations and stereotypes.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Sorry but despite Max's "yep", there were no exaggerations in that quote. What I typed was essentially true. Show me where I am unfair and I will happily back it up. Climate deniers rely on the findings of a very few people who are mostly in the employ of big oil. These players are mostly the same as the CFC deniers were. Prove me wrong instead of making baseless accusations.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Anyone with more than one child should be ashamed of themselves for bringing this on.


Anyone with a signature making fun of a person's accent should be ashamed of themselves. Grow up already. How about some real critcism?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The problem is not carbon--it's too many people on Earth.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

martman said:


> Anyone with a signature making fun of a person's accent should be ashamed of themselves. Grow up already. How about some real critcism?


MF can't - it's just too hard for him. 
Obdurately obtuse ....


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> The problem is not carbon--it's too many people on Earth.


No, the problem is people who think there is only ONE problem.
You are correct about population but to say that means we don't produce too much carbon is disingenuous. How is this population causing global warming? Body heat?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

martman said:


> Sorry but despite Max's "yep", there were no exaggerations in that quote. What I typed was essentially true. Show me where I am unfair and I will happily back it up. Climate deniers rely on the findings of a very few people who are mostly in the employ of big oil. These players are mostly the same as the CFC deniers were. Prove me wrong instead of making baseless accusations.


Do you honestly think every scientist that refutes or contests the theory of climate change does so because some oil baron is lining his pocket? : 
Come on Martie! I don't agree with a lot of scientists that are promoting global warming but I don't discredit their motivations by default. I'm sure most are sincerely concerned yet I'm sure many are also motivated by the billions being poured into research in the field. Its not all black and white as you propose. Evil scientists on one side and ethical, better educated scientists on the other.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I think it's not so much a question of too many people on earth as it is a question of too little people willing to cooperate so that present and future generations might avoid planetary catastrophe.

The tech and knowledge, I'd argue, is there. The collective will to change is not. At least, not thus far. Perhaps we need to be goaded into action through that most primal of emotions, fear.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Max said:


> Perhaps we need to be goaded into action through that most primal of emotions, fear.


Well this seems to be the reason not to move - nothing like a little fear, right Max.

And it's rather hard to have a discourse when some treat partisan hackery as fact and expect a debate from there.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Do you honestly think every scientist that refutes or contests the theory of climate change does so because some oil baron is lining his pocket? :
> Come on Martie!


Man are you disrespectful MacGuiverbaby!
Since you are unwilling to look for the meaning in what you read I will quote myself in a way that even you can understand what I typed:



martman said:


> Climate deniers rely on the findings of a very few people who are *mostly* in the employ of big oil. These players are *mostly* the same as the CFC deniers were. Prove me wrong instead of making baseless accusations.


No I don't think every one is in the employ just *most* of them.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Well this seems to be the reason not to move - nothing like a little fear, right Max.
> 
> And it's rather hard to have a discourse when some treat partisan hackery as fact and expect a debate from there.


Fear can be the cause of either action or inaction, AS... you know that as well as I do. Which action you opt to take depends on what you most fear, I suppose.

As for hackery, pshaw! You can be as partisan as I or anyone else in here... and hack merrily away while _being_ partisan. What that proves, beyond our collective humanity, I'll leave to others to debate.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max, It's pretty shocking that people here are posting out of their own preconceived notions.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Shocking, MF? I am beyond shocked by all this... maybe I'm shellshocked? Let me get my head screwed on straight so I can start back in with some good 'ole preconceived notions and self-served hackery. Oh, and a passel of links, to boot!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Do you honestly think every scientist that refutes or contests the theory of climate change does so because some oil baron is lining his pocket? :


That's right, the less than 2% that question are so right...

Amazing how some need to invent their facts to prop up whatever delusion they want to hear, right MF?

While I agree that it's important that you have voice your thoughts, I'd have respect for most of the wankers here if they based it on facts. Instead, they prefer to blather from a disconnected reality of their own making.

And Max, I'll take accuracy and facts over projection.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

"Have you forgotten your scripture, the thirteenth scroll? Proteus brought the upright beast into the garden and he began to burn all that was about him...man is responsible for global warming...this is unequivocal and undebatable."


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

martman said:


> Man are you disrespectful MacGuiverbaby!


Sorry Martman I honestly meant no disrespect.  I just assumed your name was Martie from your screen name. I apologize and you'll get Martman from now on. 
And yes you did say mostly. I guess its just that whenever a scientist disagrees with global warming, 99% of the time here on ehmac you'll here the automatic "he's probably getting paid by exon" or something of the sort when that may be the farthest thing from the truth.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> That's right, the less than 2% that question are so right...


Is that an actual percentage of scientists or are you guessing? Not being confrontational, I've just never actually seen hard numbers on where scientists fall on the issue. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The problem is not carbon--it's too many people on Earth.


I think you're confused about proximal and root causes. The data is pretty clear that increased GHGs are a major *proximal* cause of the climate change we are experiencing. But you're almost certainly correct that the *root* cause of the increased GHG production is overpopulation. So these causes are not mutually exclusive, but are in fact inexorably linked.

Fundamentally, even if we succeed in reducing our GHG production and the earth's climate re-equilibrates in some way that we can easily adapt to, we will still have to limit and reduce our population if we are to avoid extinction. That is a fact that can be easily derived from simple thermodynamics. But in the short term (i.e. the next few hundred years) mitigating the effects our too large population has on our climate and ecosystem has got to be out top priority.

As an analogy, picture a party of ice fishermen having a good time drinking beer and fishing on a frozen lake when the ice under their feet starts to crack. Obviously, their long term solution is to get off the lake, or at least reduce the number of drunken fishermen in the shelter on the ice. But in the short term, they'd be well advised to spread their weight, so that there is less concentrated force on the weakened ice. That's where we are now. And before we start arguing about who's going to get out of the shelter and go back to the truck, we need to spread out weight out. Of course Harper and Bush are jumping up and down on the crack sayin' "Aw, this is nothin' to worry about... pass me another beer...".

And as for the credibility of the scientists making these claims...


> I guess its just that whenever a scientist disagrees with global warming, 99% of the time here on ehmac you'll here the automatic "he's probably getting paid by exon"


Unfortunately, of the very few scientists who have vocally disputed the role of GHGs in climate change, several of the most vocal have been funded by the fossil fuel industry. But in the long run it doesn't matter, because in science, it's not who you are or where you're funding comes from that determines the acceptability of your claims... it's the quality of your data and the validity of the logic you've used to interpret your data.

WRT the anthropogenic causes of climate change, the proponents of this theory have met and exceeded all reasonable standards of evidence and have established this theory as the most plausible and parsimonious explanation for the data. For decades the best minds equipped with the best technology have tried to falsify this theory and have been unable to do so. That, in science, is as good as it gets. Only the most closed-minded and/or perversely skeptical deniers are still arguing that it may not be true. Such arguments can always be made about any scientific theory, but at some point, especially when you're dealing with a scientific finding that has profound socio-economic implications, you've got to start acting on the best available interpretations of the data. In this case, it means we've got to start reducing our GHG production.

Gotta run...

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> *Australian PM rules out large cuts in emissions*
> 
> KEVIN Rudd has ruled out support for deep cuts to carbon emissions expressed by Australia's official delegation to the Bali climate change talks.
> 
> The Prime Minister, who will attend the talks next week, said his Government did not agree with the target of between 25 and 40per cent by 2020, which originated from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change this year.


PM rules out large cuts in emissions | The Australian


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Still being an well trained Pavlovian artifact I see MF. Seasonal slaver just for u. 









Why do I feel the freight train of climate change is accelerating??



> *Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'*
> By Jonathan Amos
> Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco
> 
> ...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

This is exactly the win win approach that's needed. Carbon neutral is self financing. Where's Canadian gov??........food fighting in the Commons 



> *Financing green building and retrofits
> A public policy silver bullet that's available to fight global warming today*
> Posted by David Roberts at 2:47 PM on 17 Dec 2007
> 
> ...


Financing green building and retrofits | Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> This is exactly the win win approach that's needed. Carbon neutral is self financing. Where's Canadian gov??........food fighting in the Commons


That solution, while all sugar coated is not even remotely possible in many towns and cities across this country.

Our community of 57,000 is the highest taxed municipality in Canada and just discovered an unexpected deficit in financing western Canada's largest rec. centre to the tune or $12 million. Our infrastructure is failing and we are $47 million short to cover the expected costs over the next 10 years.

We are tapped to the limit and taxed to the ultimate.

Where will these funds magically appear from so we can become carbon neutral self financing? 

My bet is that most Canadian towns and cities will be in the same boat.

Self financing indeed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: Of course it isn't self-financing. That's a fairy tale told by regulators and those who have wet dreams about government bureaucracies. Burglars are also self-financing.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> SINC: Of course it isn't self-financing. That's a fairy tale told by regulators and those who have wet dreams about government bureaucracies. Burglars are also self-financing.


Not to mention big business who sell solar related products.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

We have people who can barely afford their mortgage, complaining about high property taxes, yet you want to lend them more money? That doesn't sound like a very wise investment to me, too many people are already swimming in debt. And the ones that can afford this "loan" can probably afford to do it without a loan or by refinancing their current mortgage.

And why does this always fall on the federal gov't sholders? Even your story is about a city doing this and not a country. You love to twist anything you can find don't you.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc is just like you and me...he puts his pants on one leg at a time. But when he puts his pants on, he re-makes public policy to his own liking!

More cowbells!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> In a northern Italian village, a tropical epidemic
> By Elisabeth Rosenthal
> Published: December 21, 2007
> 
> ...


In a northern Italian village, a tropical epidemic - International Herald Tribune

The tropical band has expanded north and south.
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'Tropics expand' as world warms

Interesting times.....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Freight train



> *Year weather records fell*
> 
> Dec 26, 2007 10:44 AM
> 
> ...


TheStar.com | Environment | Year weather records fell


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> England had the warmest April in 348 years of record-keeping there, shattering the record set in 1865 by more than 0.6 C.


So lemme get this straight. It took 348 years to break a record and then only by a half degree or so?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: Da-ta-ta-DAHHHHHHHHHHH!


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> So lemme get this straight. It took 348 years to break a record and then only by a half degree or so?


I love the selective absortion that is your reading ability SINC.

The line above the one you qouted and replied to:


above post said:


> U.S. weather stations broke or tied 263 all-time high temperature records, according to an Associated Press analysis of U.S. weather data.


This is in one year.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> SINC: Da-ta-ta-DAHHHHHHHHHHH!


MacFury: tptptptp tptptptp


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> I love the selective absortion that is your reading ability SINC.
> 
> The line above the one you qouted and replied to:
> 
> ...




Martman, I chalk that up to all the hot air Bush and Cheney have been spouting. Watch it drop after the election.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: Sadly, the tyranny of the ignoramuses is insurmountable and assured for all time.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

So what gives?

Is Kyoto working? Is the theory of global warming scientifically flawed? Or is there some other reason the global temperature has not risen since 1998 despite rising CO2? 

New Statesman - Has global warming stopped?

Interesting article.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The thing is, we shouldn't be messing in failed plans like Kyoto or Bali or whatever the future holds. It is obvious we know how to solve our own problems without anyone else "telling us" exactly how _they_ would like us to do it.

Here's the right way to go:

"Canadians are among the most notorious greenhouse gas producers on Earth, generating CO2 at almost every turn.

We jump into cars to zip to the corner store or hockey rink, jet around the planet for vacations and work, burn mountains of cheap coal to make electricity, and fuel our economy with carbon-laden oilsands.

It all adds up to 747 million tonnes a year of greenhouse gas, according Environment Canada, or more than 20 tonnes for each and every Canadian. That is twice as much as Europeans produce, and five times more than the 4.2 tonnes per capita generated by South Asians.

A growing stack of reports, including one due out within weeks from the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, say Canada can clean up. The country may be big and cold, but they say it can win the war on climate change. Or it can at least try, by cutting production of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 60 to 70 per cent by 2050."

Winning the carbon war not an easy task, but doable


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> SINC: Sadly, the tyranny of the ignoramuses is insurmountable and assured for all time.


Well, yes, the deniers seem to embody that.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sinc & MF wistfully floating off into the sunset together on the rapidly disintegrating denier island.... appropriately full of holes.. 










••••

Highway to the Danger Zone.....  



> *Climatic Chain Reaction Caused Runaway Greenhouse Effect 55 Million Years Ago*
> 
> ScienceDaily (Dec. 27, 2007) — There are new findings regarding a phase of rapid global greenhouse warming that took place 55 million years ago. This period of climate change is regarded as the best fossil analogue to current and future greenhouse warming.
> 
> ...


Utrecht University (2007, December 27). Climatic Chain Reaction Caused Runaway Greenhouse Effect 55 Million Years Ago. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 28, 2007, from http://www.sciencedaily.com* /releases/2007/12/071221222544.htm 

One reason the models are lagging the reality in climate change acceleration. The Arctic is warming far faster than anticipated.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I will state it again. I have no doubt the globe is warming. I have every doubt we can do something to change it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Love those bears:


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I will state it again. I have no doubt the globe is warming. I have every doubt we can do something to change it.


So we shouldn't try? Sorry but this is just lame. 

The gov't isn't going to stop being corrupt so we shouldn't even try and get them to be honest. Criminals won't stop committing crimes so we shouldn't try and stop them.

I love where your attitude leads us.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

My attitude leads us to allocating resources to areas where we can make a difference--not tilting at windmills.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> My attitude leads us to allocating resources to areas where we can make a difference--not tilting at windmills.


This would be a commendably rational position if the vast majority of scientific evidence did not support the hypothesis that human activity has played a significant role in the climate change we are observing.

There are certainly other factors, but the data strongly suggests that our polluting of the atmosphere has exacerbated this problem, and it therefore follows that changing our behaviour can mitigate the problem. The only questions are can we do enough and can we do it fast enough?

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> allocating resources to areas where we can make a difference--


For instance???

Right now YOU can buy carbon neutral power....that makes a difference. Have you??

Right NOW there are hundreds of carbon neutral investments - wind power and solar alone provide numerous.
They make a difference AND make money. Have you invested in them???? - they make a difference

You're like a little kid forced away from his "pollute for free" playground and whining and complaining about it.....you and Harper, quite the puerile pair over pollution.

Getting rid of Harper would make a difference....but YOU won't.

all flows from there........


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MF: You've raised the hackles of the fanatics once again. Surprised you didn't mention how carbon credit buying is a sham, but I guess we both knew that anyway. (Clear conscience but net zero GHG reduction isn't it?)

By the way, you did a far better job with your Photoshop "quotes" than the original guy who faked that polar bear pic in the first place.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Sinc, have anything to add or do you just like to bait with ignorance...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: What's cool is that you can buy power from a bullfrog and fly around the world with a clear conscience. I support everyone's democratic right to do either--or both. Some people want to make decisions for others. It's an understandable attitude that is often traced back to taunting suffered in the childhood playground...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Sinc, have anything to add or do you just like to bait with ignorance...


Of course I added something:

1. I noted and I quote, "raised the hackles of the fanatics once again".

2. I also noted, "carbon credit buying is a sham".

3. Then I noted that, carbon credit buying results in a "clear conscience but net zero GHG reduction".

4. I also noted, that the "guy who faked that polar bear pic in the first place", didn't do a very good job of it. Not even near believable IMO.

Should I have added more? Is that a concern? I'll try and be more diligent in my future observations. After all, last time I checked, my opinions carry the same weight as anyone else's on the forum.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> MF: You've raised the hackles of the fanatics once again.


Yep... all those scientists are irrational fanatics who _want_ to destroy the global economy because getting grants is so easy these days and they're looking for a challenge.



Macfury said:


> Some people want to make decisions for others.


Who would that be? Certainly not the people providing options so that consumers can *choose* renewable energy or other environmentally sustainable products. Perhaps you mean the large multinational corporations that are actively fighting against policy changes that threaten their control over the global energy economy?

Rather than the occasionally funny jabs at those who are making an effort to improve life for our decedents, why don't you suggest some constructive action that you support, and then we can discuss it reasonably? You're bright guys, you must have some ideas that go beyond 'make-fun-of-the-people-trying-to-make-a-difference'. Or are you stuck in that sophomoric 'cynicism-is-cool' mode... maybe you should get matching black berets.

Cheers


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC, you can write/quote whatever you want. It's the baiting that not appreciated.

But you forgot the favourite quotes of idiots.
- Global warming is a hoax designed to scare people into giving money, power of sovereignty or more power to politicians.
- It's all a socialist plot
- And they want to kill the economy.

You should also quote that charlatan Tim Ball who will suck the tail pipe of any car saying that CO2 is natural and not dangerous to man (all the while getting paid by big oil).

You should also denigrate real scientists and anyone like Suziki.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Yep... all those scientists are irrational fanatics who _want_ to destroy the global economy because getting grants is so easy these days and they're looking for a challenge.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think I have always respected your opinions on the forum. Only thing is, I can't bring myself to engage my "brightness" as you call it to convince myself that first, the problem is near as severe as scientists (insert alarmists here) say. 

Second, I do not believe we can change the climate in any appreciable way. It seems to me it is all part of a natural cycle of Ma Nature. In spite of that, I have tried to reduce my so-called "carbon footprint" in a spirit of cooperation with the rest of the herd.

And last, but not least, I believe that profit by major corporations is the prime motivation for the current global warming fear mongering that we endure.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> SINC, you can write/quote whatever you want. It's the baiting that not appreciated.


It is not my intent to "bait" anyone. Read into my comments in the post above what you will, but it is not baiting.

BTW the man's name is Suzuki.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> It is not my intent to "bait" anyone. Read into my comments in the post above what you will, but it is not baiting.


Bull Sinc. 
It's completely pointless for some to understand science yet alone the difference between "climate" and "weather"... 
It's amusing to see how Connies and the deniers make themselves the victims in an effort to deflect any responsibility from their own actions.

And no SINC, I will not read any thing into your comments - you should really be more articulate and state what you think instead of this feckless game.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Bull Sinc.
> It's completely pointless for some to understand science yet alone the difference between "climate" and "weather"...
> It's amusing to see how Connies and the deniers make themselves the victims in an effort to deflect any responsibility from their own actions.
> 
> And no SINC, I will not read any thing into your comments - you should really be more articulate and state what you think instead of this feckless game.


If you think that the following is not stating what I think, I cannot fathom how else to put it. It IS what I think and what I believe. Can't do much more than that for anyone.



SINC said:


> I can't bring myself to engage my "brightness" as you call it to convince myself that first, the problem is near as severe as scientists (insert alarmists here) say.
> 
> Second, I do not believe we can change the climate in any appreciable way. It seems to me it is all part of a natural cycle of Ma Nature. In spite of that, I have tried to reduce my so-called "carbon footprint" in a spirit of cooperation with the rest of the herd.
> 
> And last, but not least, I believe that profit by major corporations is the prime motivation for the current global warming fear mongering that we endure.


How I can put my thoughts and beliefs any more clearly is beyond me. Is it that difficult to comprehend?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: You've ht the nail on the head. Those corporations supporing global warming cures have already figured out how to make money from it on the backs of consumers. Those dragging their feet are angry that they haven't been able to spin their markets into a green cash engine as fast as the others.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> I think I have always respected your opinions on the forum.


Thanks... and I yours (well... mostly  ) 


> Only thing is, I can't bring myself to engage my "brightness" as you call it to convince myself that first, the problem is near as severe as scientists (insert alarmists here) say.


Perhaps it's me. I've spent my career dealing with scientists, and my experience is that they're a highly *conservative* lot... while there's nothing better for a young scientist's career than overturning a well-established theory, in general, we're pretty cautious about making claims ('cause there are so many bright kids around who'll make fools of us if we're wrong). So when a strong claim is made and a clear scientific consensus emerges around it (as is the case for the athropogenic causes of climate change), the chances of it being wrong are extremely low. But I'm a molecular biologist, not a climatologist, so I lack the expertise to critically examine the data myself.



> Second, I do not believe we can change the climate in any appreciable way. It seems to me it is all part of a natural cycle of Ma Nature. In spite of that, I have tried to reduce my so-called "carbon footprint" in a spirit of cooperation with the rest of the herd.


Good on ya. Wether the scientific community is right or wrong on this issue, there can be no doubt that efforts we make to reduce our ecological footprint are commendable and do make a difference.



> And last, but not least, I believe that profit by major corporations is the prime motivation for the current global warming fear mongering that we endure.


Yep. And this is where I don't understand the positions you, MF and the other critics of Keyto/Bali/Whatever are taking. I tend to be a leftist, but even I can see that the free market is the most powerful tool we've got to change consumer behaviour, so bring on the spin/marketing/bull****... as long as people start spending their money on doing things that do less damage to the environment I'm all for it. It's sort of like my position regarding Ducks Unlimited... I think its appalling that these people like shooting birds for fun, but if that's what motivates them to preserve wetlands, their perversion is by far the lesser of two evils.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

bryanc said:


> Yep. And this is where I don't understand the positions you, MF and the other critics of Keyto/Bali/Whatever are taking. I tend to be a leftist, but even I can see that the free market is the most powerful tool we've got to change consumer behaviour


Well MF is scared of the free market. He's shown that he prefers the statu quo and is afraid to compete. Let's not forget the corporate welfare that he loves so dearly - c'mon it's all about corporations....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm always scared of government-controlled "free" markets. The type of perversity that only closet lefties can support as free. Interesting example of double-speak, however.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I'm always scared of government-controlled "free" markets. The type of perversity that only closet lefties can support as free. Interesting example of double-speak, however.


Would you have any examples of "free" markets? Last time, your example of dairy in the US was a little shaky (to be generous).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'm ALWAYS interested in MFs answers to "such as" 

Hint....stay away from agriculture.

About the only "frictionless" markets on the planet are Ebay and Craigslist.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> I'm ALWAYS interested in MFs answers to "such as"
> 
> Hint....stay away from agriculture.
> 
> About the only "frictionless" markets on the planet are Ebay and Craigslist.


Well, maybe MF can muster an example that we can discuss...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Very few free marketplaces. However the New York dairies are freer than those in Ontario--thus lower prices.


You quoting the feed discounts the farmers get? Did not think so...

Senator Schumer seems to be working hard for those dairy farmers


> IN THE WAKE OF DOUBLE DIGIT DROPS IN MILK PRICES, SCHUMER LAUNCHES CAMPAIGN TO SAVE AND EXPAND MILC PROGRAM THAT SENT UPSTATE NY DAIRY FARMERS $38 MILLION SINCE APRIL
> 
> However, as negotiations on the 2007 Farm Bill begin to heat up, the program is in danger of being cut again. The MILC program provides subsidies to dairy farmers when the price of milk drops below $16.94. Since November 2005, the average price of milk in upstate New York has plummeted from $17.81 to $15.68. As part of his campaign, Schumer is pushing language to double the annual production cap, which could mean millions more for upstate New York dairy farmers.
> 
> ...


Latest News

Now a free market advocate like you would/should understand that those quotas and prices in Ontario are assuring that farmers get a fair market price for their produces without costing too much is subsidies. You know, letting the market dictate what should be the price... ahh yes, I forget, you want taxpayers money to pay for that cheap pint of milk you think you deserve.... 

Free market?


> The U.S. is the most tightly closed dairy market in the world with less than three per cent of dairy consumption filled by imports. The U.S. has no intention of giving any increased access to its dairy market in the future.
> 
> Thirty-three countries in the 137-nation WTO protect their dairy industries with tariffs. Tariffs on dairy products account for 183 of the total 1,371 tariff-rate quotas on all commodities.
> 
> Canada's dairy tariffs are lower than those of our major trading partners. For example, the Canadian tariff on butter equals $111 U.S. per tonne for butter versus $123 for the U.S. or $948 for the EU.


Dairy Farmers of Ontario

BTW, dairy producers are free to produce as much milk as they want above their quotas....

So MF, where is that free market example... still waiting...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ontario farmers are free to exceed their "quota" and export the milk, but not to sell it in Ontario, where it might affect price. While the U.S. dairy industry as a whole is heavily protected, each state has different regulations. Why do you suppose the price of milk has declined so considerably in New York State, even within the context of a marketing board? New York State has a state-mandated retail milk price, but it is based on market factors that include spot prices and level of production. The New York State milk price drop was a result of increased production, something that could never happen in Ontario.

I have no doubt that Senator Schumer wants to "fix" the problem--this is typical of his political stance.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> I'm ALWAYS interested in MFs answers to "such as"
> 
> Hint....stay away from agriculture.


MF's argument seems to be prices are less expensive for milk in NY, see the free market works even if those NY farmers get massive subsidies... :lmao: 

So where is that example?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yes. Both jurisidictions subsidize their dairy farmers, but New Yorkers dairy farmers can produce as much milk as they want for the local market. Ontario dairy farmers cannot. Unregulated supply allows prices to drop to less than half of Ontario milk prices. The increase in supply changes the price.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Yes. Both jurisidictions subsidize their dairy farmers, but New Yorkers dairy farmers can produce as much milk as they want for the local market. Ontario dairy farmers cannot. Unregulated supply allows prices to drop to less than half of Ontario milk prices. The increase in supply changes the price.


Failling into small peccadillos.... So where is your free market example?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You were the one who suggested NY dairy farmers were an example of a perfect free market--not me. Then you asked me to show how NY dairy farmers were freer than Ontario dairy farmers, resulting in a lower price of milk--which I did.

What are you asking for now? And why? And why in a topic on global warming?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> I'm ALWAYS interested in MFs answers to "such as"
> 
> Hint....stay away from agriculture.
> 
> About the only "frictionless" markets on the planet are Ebay and Craigslist.


I see MF still can't give a proper example and falls into rhetoric and starts being deliberately obtuse....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: In the interests of ending this topic drift, I will gladly respond if you set up a new topic dealing exactly with whatever you're asking of me.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> LITTLE ROCK — A tornado was reported blowing across eastern Arkansas Tuesday, a day after a freak cluster of January twisters sprung up in the unseasonably warm Midwest and demolished houses, knocked a railroad locomotive off its tracks and shuttered a courthouse.
> 
> The twister swept through Pope County, the National Weather Service said. One person was killed, said Tommy Jackson, a spokesman for the Arkansas Department of Emergency Management. Others were injured, said Jim Campbell, Assistant Director for Pope County 911.
> 
> ...


Wider extremes indeed.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Ominous Arctic Melt Worries Experts
> 'Arctic Is Screaming,' Say Scientists Seeing New Data; Worry Over 'Tipping Point'*
> By SETH BORENSTEIN
> The Associated Press
> ...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Reading that article is quite worrying. James Hansen of NASA quoted in it has been arguing for several years now that the linear view of Arctic ice melt is incorrect. He says there is a feedback loop that applies, so that the Arctic and Greenland ice melt could spiral up very fast in a much shorter time than previously thought possible.

A 22 foot rise in sea levels would mean a guaranteed worldwide human and economic catastrophe. Imagine a few hundred New Orleans occurring to the world's largest cities with no reconstruction possible. I think that with this kind of worst case scenario seeming to be increasingly more possible we no longer can have any excuse for not immediately addressing our carbon output. I'm sick of government inaction and their lame excuses.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Most climate scientists know they're model for the poles is very deficient in dealing with how much warmth the change in albedo generates.

There was a good article about the Antarctic oceans getting to 24 degrees  the last time there was a CO2 spike generated by volcanoes and they do not have a model that accounts for ocean temps that high.
For several factors the Antarctic has a slower response - mostly it's on land.

The Arctic ocean cover is a done turkey but fortunately in some respects there is little rise in sea level - just a massive change in local climate and fauna responses...ie walruses coming ashore to breed for the first time recorded.

Greenland is a time bomb that ticks faster then slower and from what I understand the factors are not entirely understood.
What they do know is the melting is accelerating on average big time but some years less than others.

My concern is there is little direct measurement out of Siberia where methane release is huge risk for rapidly accelerating climate change.
Lot of fossil carbon stored in fragile structures.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ClimateChangeCorp.com: Policy - Bali special report – was it good for business?



> According to media reports at the end of 2007, Japan, Italy and Spain face payments of as much as $33 billion in carbon credits combined for failing to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions as promised under the Kyoto treaty.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> ClimateChangeCorp.com: Policy - Bali special report – was it good for business?


money, money , money.
That is all you seem to care about. There is far more at stake here than your precious dollar.



Chief Seattle said:


> "When the bird no longer flies in the sky and the fish no longer swim in the stream, only then will the white man realize he can't eat money-"


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Urban Legends Reference Pages: Chief Seattle Speech


Cool. I didn't know this, and I always like it when I find out famous quotes are misattributed.

I really liked the title of one of the references: "Chief Seattle didn't speak Bumpersticker"

Cheers

(Of course, it goes without saying that the source of these words has no bearing on their validity, so we can still agree that they are an eloquent expression of an obvious truth).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc: I don't want to misrepresent my vast storehouse of knowledge here. I checked the good chief's quotes out of curiosity and found out that they were misattributed.

I once checked Benjamin Franklin's quote:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

It doesn't belong specifically to Franklin after all, but when he used it, it was in a plea to the governor of Pennsylvania to provide guns to the settlers, rather than have them give up their liberty by depending on the government to protect them against attack from neighbouring tribes. It's now often used in an entirely different context.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I don't want to misrepresent my vast storehouse of knowledge here....


Hmmm... knowledgeable _and_ modest. If only you agreed with me more often you'd be the ideal poster 

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The Stern Report is beginning to unravel as his conclusions are being challenged by those emboldened by the ClimateGate scandals:

Don't trust the weatherman's forecasts | The Australian


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------

